Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Liao dynasty/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: The article may be a bit too long, but that can still be addressed while maintaining its GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The article is quite large and has a "too long" yellow banner at the top from September 2025. When I skimmed through the article, I found lots of places that had too much detail, not fulfilling the GA criteria 3b which says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I think much of the prose could be summarised more effectively and/or have information moved to spun out articles, especially in the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any reason not replace all the instances of "Yila" by "Yelü""? (or vice versa - tho Yelü has a supermajority) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yila and Yelü are not the same words. Is there a reason why one would replace the other? Qiushufang (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem from Yelü, Yila is another spelling for the name, which I missed.Qiushufang (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- This source goes into more detail on the difference between Yila (Ila) and Yelü (Yerud). They are different names for the same clan but adopted at different times. I would keep both of them. Qiushufang (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Noting for the record that while there have been no further comments here indicating interest in addressing the issues raised above, I have refrained from closing the discussion as a fair amount of editing has been undertaken by Qiushufang in the meantime. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Qiushufang, is it your intention to resolve the issues raised above during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I've been cutting down on unnecessary verbage and may eventually put parts of the article in their own individual articles. Qiushufang (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: Are you planning to continue working on this? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm planning on putting info from the pre-dynastic history section into the Khitan people page to decrease article length. Not sure when I'll get to it though, as an article of primary interest to me, I'll be editing it on and off for a long time, but I got a bit side tracked. Qiushufang (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: Are you planning to continue working on this? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: Are you still interested in working on this article? I see that it has been several weeks since the article has been edited. Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: I saw that you made some edits after my ping above. Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang, why would you do a wholesale, full-fledged revert of all my edits? I was just fixing MOS violations, like the repeated use of "the" before people's names (false title), WP:GNL, consolidating repeated citations in the same paragraph, making the article more grammatically correct, changing "Khitan" to "Liao" when the context refers to the dynasty and not the ethnic tribe, removing duplicate links etc. However, I will not revert before the commenters above @Z1720 and @TompaDompa weigh in. Please not you don't WP:OWN the article, it is not your personal property. Matarisvan (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm sorry if the heavy handed revert came off as offensive and heavy handed, but many of the choices taken in the version change indicate a lack of familiarity with the subject that it would have taken too many specific reverts to fix. For example an early mention of Khitan "scripts" early on was changed to the singular "script", but the plural is on purpose because there was more than one script, the Khitans had two. The ethnic noun "Han" was pluralized to "Hans" which is not the convention for pluralization, see Han people. About half way through the edits, it seems that a decision was made that the plural form "Khitans" should become "Khitan" ("750,000 Khitans" became "750,000 Khitan").
- Starting from around a third of the way through the changes, many words were broken and spelling errors introduced, possibly due to a program that was used for the edits (ie. "emperor and the title" became "emp titf" or "Khitans to accept" became "Liaoept"). There are a dozen or more of these malformed mistakes. Many of the paragraph combining edits don't make any sense from a subject perspective (ie. a sentence on border troubles with nomads is combined with a paragraph on the emperor drinking and killing people). Sometimes it was just unnecessary and made the article harder to read - a several sentence long intro on an emperor's accession was combined with another multi-sentence paragraph on events that occurred later. While it is natural to have paragraphs rather than single sentence lines, it is just as awkward to have two completely unrelated topics attached to each other. Daozong's interment with his late wife, who was forced to commit suicide in a prior incident, was improperly changed to "was forced to commit suicide" rather than "had been forced", making it seem as though she committed suicide for the entombment rather than having already committed suicide prior.
- While there are definitely improvements to the flow of the body writing made in the version change, I deemed there to be enough problems that overall there were as many problems introduced as improvements, which was why I made the reversion. Qiushufang (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang, why would you do a wholesale, full-fledged revert of all my edits? I was just fixing MOS violations, like the repeated use of "the" before people's names (false title), WP:GNL, consolidating repeated citations in the same paragraph, making the article more grammatically correct, changing "Khitan" to "Liao" when the context refers to the dynasty and not the ethnic tribe, removing duplicate links etc. However, I will not revert before the commenters above @Z1720 and @TompaDompa weigh in. Please not you don't WP:OWN the article, it is not your personal property. Matarisvan (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm finished for now. Qiushufang (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: I saw that you made some edits after my ping above. Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: At over 14,000 words, I think this article is still WP:TOOBIG. I think the "History" section is the best place to start spinning out information into other, more focused articles with information summarised back into this one. Some of the sub-sections in History are also too large: by spinning out some information the sections will not be so big. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Noted. I'll condense some more of the military info and put them in their respective articles. Qiushufang (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.