# Talk:Han campaigns against Minyue

Never heard of Weimo.  I was under the impression that Goguryeo ("Korguryo") was the northen (and largest of the) Three Kingdoms on the Korean peninsula, covering this "Weimo" area, down to the Baekje kingdom.   Haven't found anything on Wikipedia or Google. Jyg (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Han Dynasty or File:Han map.jpg is a better place to ask a question about the map, but according to hitorian Hyung Il Pai's Constructing Korean Origins, Weimo is the Chinese name, romanized in Pinyin, for Yemaek.--Typing General (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Han campaigns against Minyue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 02:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Will aim to get to this some time on the weekend. Not my area of expertise, incidentally, but if it reads well and makes sense to me then I think my review will be worthwhile -- and I'll no doubt learn something into the bargain... ;-)  Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Toolbox check

No dablink or EL problems reported.
Prose

Language is neutral, no bias detected.
I've done a light copyedit, so pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything; outstanding points:
"The Qin Dynasty's military incursions in the south began a process of southward expansion that continued under the next dynasty, the Han." -- Two things here: first off I think you need to be clear about where "in the south" is, for the uninitiated. Perhaps simply "in the south of what is now China" or some such is all you need. Secondly, be good if we can avoid "south/southward" repetition. Suggest that you can get by with just "expansion", not "southward expansion", since we've established the direction earlier in the sentence...
Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Sima Qian claims both rulers were descendants of..." -- Um, who's Sima Qian? An historian? Ancient or modern? Since the name isn't linked it needs a qualifier/description (okay, I know I can find this out by looking ahead to the reference section but my point is I shouldn't need to do that).
Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"There were plans to move the residents of Eastern Ou..." -- If it's worth mentioning the plans, might be worth mentioning what became of those plans, even if they never came to fruition, otherwise inquisitive souls like me are left wondering... ;-)
It's brought up under Third campaign. Contemporaneous sources report that the government carried out the population transfer after the annexation of Eastern Ou, but modern historians are skeptical at best.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Structure/comprehensiveness

The structure of the article seems logical and straightforward.
The level of detail seems suitable for a GA-level article, though I'm not competent to say of any major facts have been neglected; my feeling is that another level of detail would be necessary for the article to be progressed to A-Class or FA.
Referencing

While I'm not an expert on the quality of the sources used, they are at least published books.
All paragraphs cited and the citation format is consistent.
Supporting materials

Infobox seems suitably laid out.
Image licensing appears okay.
Summary -- Nice, succinct article; generally I was able to follow everything even though I have no familiarity with the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy with changes/responses -- passing as GA, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)