Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Hulao

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 promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Hulao[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

One of the most pivotal battles in Chinese history, as it cemented the Tang dynasty as rulers of China. A rather old article, it passed GA back in 2013, and I had held out a nomination hoping to find more sources. Alas, Graff's monograph will probably remain the basis of this article for the foreseeable future, or until my Chinese skills are up to the task of reading historical literature. Nevertheless, I am confident that the article is comprehensive and meets A-class criteria. Any and all suggestions for improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Suggest alternating the first two sentences in the lead. Roughly: The Battle of Hulao (虎牢之戰) on 28 May 621 was a major and the final battle during the Luoyang-Hulao campaign between Tang, Zheng and Xia. It was a decisive victory for the Tang Dynasty prince Li Shimin, through which he was able to subdue two rival warlords, Dou Jiande and Wang Shichong.

Rewritten a bit along these lines, it definitely reads better now.

Something of a side note, but how did military failures cause the provincial governors to question something as sacred as the Mandate from Heaven? Did they believe that Heaven was expressing its displeasure with Yang?

Well, historically, military success has always been a major legitimizing factor for any regime, and lack of it has led often to the toppling of a monarch, dynasty, government, etc. It goes without saying that if you base your claim on divine support, you cannot loose any battles, because that means that the gods are angry with you.

Li Yuan was now firmly placed as a major contender for the empire. That reads as a person "for" a country...perhaps major contender for the throne?

Changed.

it has been described as a "Chinese Thermopylae". Described as such by who?

Added.

apart from skirmishes between the two armies' cavalry, the two armies maintained their standoff Suggest revision as apart from skirmishes between their cavalry, the two armies maintained their standoff.

Changed.

Wang was ostensibly allowed to retire in exile, but was killed on his way there. Exile where?

Added.

There's a number of commanders in the infobox that have no mention in the article prose.

These were added by User:Seasonsinthesun. He also amended the infobox to include the events at Luoyang as an integral Luoyang–Hulao campaign, but this is not the topic of the article. I've therefore removed the Zheng as combatants, as well as the commanders not mentioned in the article.

Should Wang and his faction and the total 50,000 Tang troops be included in the infobox, if they didn't participate in the actual engagement?

Removed per above.

Do you know if there are any modern commemorations of the battle, plaques or monuments or the like?

I am not aware of such. According to the Chinese wiki, the battle is a central event in a modern martial arts novel. Ironically, Hulao is probably better known from the fictional battle in the Tale of the Three Kingdoms, rather than the actual historical event.

Even if you aren't able to fully read them, are you aware of any Chinese sources that might have some info that is not represented in the article?

I have had the opportunity of perusing some of the primary sources. If I made full use of them, I would definitely have a far more detailed narrative, with more actors and an almost day-to-day presentation of events. Phases that are now summed up as "over the next weeks" could be fleshed out more. Presumably modern Chinese historians have also published on the battle, and may present some scholarly insight that is missing now. I do not intend to move this forward for FA any time soon for exactly this reason, but I am nevertheless confident that the essentials of the battle and the events surrounding it are included, at least sufficiently so for the A2 criterium.
I just now found that C. P. Fitzgerald's book on Li Shimin, which draws closely from the primary sources, is available in Google Books (it was not so when I wrote the article), and I have also ordered a copy. I will expand the article from it during the weekend. Constantine ✍ 13:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, I've just finished a rewrite and expansion of the article, using Fitzgerald's work, which contains many more details from the primary sources. The battle account itself was mostly left the same, but I've expanded considerably on the background operations and on the characters, motivations and actions of the principal Tang antagonists. Please have a look whenever you have time. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support. that he resembled a porcupine sounds like embellishment and should be in-text attributed, but other than that I'm satisfied the article meets the criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks a lot for your suggestions Indy beetle, they provided the impetus for considerable improvement. Constantine ✍ 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, not much stood out to me. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox "likely" should have a capital L

Done.

in the infobox, is there anything that could be added for Tang casualties?

The sources I have don't mention anything concrete. Probably light, but this would edge into WP:OR territory on my part.

No worries, that is a fair call. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, was the major and final battle during the Luoyang–Hulao campaign --> "was the main and final battle of the Luoyang–Hulao campaign"?

Amended.

in the lead, Shanxi is overlinked

Fixed.

same as above in the Background

Fixed.

until his assassination in 618.[6][7][5]: suggest putting the refs in numerical order
Tang regime itself in peril.[41][39]: as above
10 miles (16 km) east of the pass.[39][44][1]: as above
China under Tang rule.[68][69][53]: as above

Fixed all of the above.

citations seem consistently formated to me (no action required)
in the Sources section, the hyphenation of the the ISBN for the Shahar work is slightly different to Graff and the others
in the Sources section, regarding Chinese Sculpture, according to this: [1], the editors of the whole work are Anglea Howard, Li Song, Wu Hung and Yang Hond. Should they be credited?
in the Sources section, is there a location of publication for the Yang source?

Fixed all of the above.

sources all appear to be reliable to me

Thanks a lot for taking the time AustralianRupert. The usual question: how did it read in terms of comprehensibility (assuming that you are not very familiar with the Sui/Tang era)? Constantine ✍ 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I don't know anything about the topic, I'm afraid, but what you have here seems comprehensive to me (other than the Tang losses, which you can't really add in if your sources don't say). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 264[edit]

"Decisive Tang victory and end of Dou Jiande's Xia regime; consequently surrender of Luoyang and Wang Shichong's Zheng regime; consolidation of the Tang dynasty and reunification of China" too long-winded, try Decisive Tang victory. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved map to infobox and some modest edits, revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith-264, thanks, your edits were mostly fine. Any further comments, above and beyond A-class requirements? Constantine ✍ 10:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attar[edit]

I read that Li Yuan's province was "located near the capitals of Daxingcheng (Chang'an) and Luoyang." Then I read: "Li Yuan's troops stormed the capital". Then "Henan was controlled by the Luoyang-based Wang Shichong". So this means that Li Yuan stormed Chang'an ?. It is not clear.
- Good point, clarified.
"The monks of the nearby Shaolin Monastery". The monks had an army? Maybe a short note to clarify the military capabilities of the monastery can be added.
- Added a footnote.
Who is Xue Rengao. Liu Wuzhou was already presented but Xue just appear without a background. Maybe the name of Liu shoud be mentioned first then Liu would be presented.
- Xue is not really connected with Liu, except in so far as both were in the northwestern parts of the empire, and the object of Li Shimin's first consolidation campaign in that direction. I've added a small clarifying statement, but would prefer not to go into too much detail here.

I have no further comments. The article in well written and comprehensive to the point of leaving no place for me to suggest any more clarification. Enjoyable read.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Attar-Aram syria. Can you confirm if you are supporting promotion of this article to A-Class or not? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though Constantine havent yet replied to my comments, I see no reason to postpone the promotion. So Support.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Attar-Aram syria, thanks for taking the time, and your edits and suggestions. I've made some changes, have a look. Anything else, above and beyond ACR requirements? Constantine ✍ 11:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All is good. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Citations and references are all formatted uniformly and appears to be in order.
Sources appear to all be from reliable publishers. I do wonder a bit about the reliance on Fitzgerald, given its age. Granted, it hasn't exactly been the easiest for westerners to get access to Chinese records since 1950, so there may be few options on the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald is only being used to provide some additional context from the primary sources; the bulk of the article relies on Graff. Fitzgerald's views on Li Shimin the politician are really outdated as the diary of Wen Daya, his father's secretary (which revealed that pretty much everything that was known about his relations with his family and his role in starting the Tang rebellion was his own propaganda) was not published until a few years later, this does not really impact this article, as the military events are beyond question. Fitzgerald is also useful as he visited the site himself before it was built up, and his grasp of the local geography, along with the main primary sources, is excellent. As written above, my knowledge of Chinese, and access to modern Chinese scholarly sources, is insufficient for more. Constantine ✍ 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Nice work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.