# Talk:History of the Song dynasty

The article clearly passes all of the "quick-fail" criteria.
Check the picture of Huizong.
Beyond that, I see no other points of specific interest to be mentioned; the article is very well-referenced and comprehensive.
For a professional review and refinement of prose, see the League of Copyeditors.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Once 6c is taken care of, I will complete the review.
Cliff smith 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since the picture tag has been taken care of and all other points have been met, I have decided to pass this article. Cliff smith 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Awesome dude, I'm glad it was thought highly of; it's a good article (hence its status, lol).--PericlesofAthens 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As part of GA sweeps, I will be conducting a re-review of this article to ensure that it continues to maintain GA standards. AS the article is very long, I will need several sessions to read through it all. I will be listing potential problems here as I find them. These can be addressed immediately or left until the formal GA review begins once I have finished. If problems remain once the review begins, editors will have seven days to begin making improvements to the article or it may be delisted. If work is progressing then as much time as required will be available. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a problem for GA, and will not come up in the review, but it strikes me that a significant proportion of this article relates to the militaruy history of the period. However, the individual wars do not have their own articles and the obvious limitiations of space in this article mean that it can be frustrating to read at times: keen to find out more but the information not being avaliable. It would be interesting in the long term if someone can develop articles on the seperate wars to see them in more detail and from a range of perspectives.
Again, this will not come up at GAR, but the article has many red links which would be better blue from a contextual standpoint.
The whole article is in need of a copyedit. Problems are mainly centered around redundancy and the slightly odd sentence structure used within the article that sometimes makes paragraphs more complicated than they need to be. I am still deciding whether this problem will be a pass/fail issue at GAR, although it is definately something that should be addressed.
This will be in the review. "During the first couple decades of rule," - vague and colloquial, give a more precise time scale and/or phrase it more encyclopedically.
"peace was an illusion as the Song was more concerned with consolidating the south." - its not clear what this means from the context.
Dates should not be wikilinked.
who is "James A. Anderson"? Explain in the article.
who is "Su Shi"?
"Kaifeng (or Bianjing as the city was known during the Song period)," - if a place had a different name during the period under discussion, then use that name and pipe link it. If you think it is essential, then explain the difference the first time it is mentioned. Don't use a name simply because it is modern, that is an anachronism.
Right, I have finished my review. In almost every aspect, the article is brilliant. However there is one aspect in which it falls down badly: the quality of its prose. I suggest that rather than force you to perform a major copyedit under time pressure or try to find someone else to do it, you leave it with me. I can copyedit the article (it may be a slow process) and once done I will pass as GA (as there are no other outstanding issues). I will post anything I am unsure about here and you can comment on my changes and reverse or further amend them as necessary. If this is acceptable to you then please let me know. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have at it! I made some amendments according to your suggestions, but now she's all yours. You've done an excellent job reviewing the article so far; I trust your judgment.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


### Questions
"In the early 11th century, there were some 30,000 men who took the prefectural exams" - is this by year or a total for the whole period?
"There were also other benefits of Taizu's scholarly, merit-driven system of exam graduates staffed in and maintaining the central, provincial, and local bureaucracies" - such as?
Those are the exam candidates per year; I just checked Ebrey's source to make sure.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article contains a footnote (no. 10) referring to: Hargett (1996), 413.
However, there is no work by Hargett in the references. I assume that this article was used (from Song dynasty, it fits in year and page number):
——— (1996), "Song Dynasty Local Gazetteers and Their Place in The History of Difangzhi Writing", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 56 (2): 405–442, doi:10.2307/2719404, JSTOR 2719404
Could someone please check/correct this.
A big thank you to the author(s) of this article. From the German Wikipedia, --Herr Klugbeisser (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Song Modi.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Conquest of Song Dynasty.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)