Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guandimiao/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 February 2025 [1].

Guandimiao

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guandimiao is a Late Shang archaeological site in central China. The late Shang - or Anyang period - was centered at the site of Yinxu, about 200 km to the north of this little village. Despite its distance from the great capital, it shared a lot of cultural and material similarities, though who knows how much political control extended. Like the Shang capital, the villagers shared a propensity for sacrifice - mostly animal, in the form of cattle, pigs, and dogs - but some humans too! I hope everyone enjoys this article. If promoted, it'll be used for WP:Wikicup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]

Thank you for writing this excellent article on this important topic! Toadspike [Talk] 04:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently we have a photo of the site! See commons:Category:Guandimiao Site. Might be worth including.
    • Added! - G
  • The lang template in the lead should be for 关帝庙遗址, not the abbreviated 关帝庙, since the Chinese sources seem to use the full name exclusively. The shorter name is extremely ambiguous, what with there being a huge number of temples to Guan Yu. In English this ambiguity is less of an issue and it looks like all the sources abbreviate to Guandimiao, so I won't ask you to change every mention to "the Guandimiao site". It does bother me a little, though, since the village was not called "Guandimiao" at the time.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Bone tools should probably be linked.
    • Done. - G
  • "attested elsewhere" is a little odd – are you referring to other Shang sites or globally? The whole sentence use a rewording or perhaps a split in two – I suggest moving the grave goods right after the number of graves, and leaving the comparison for last.
    • Reworded. - G
  • Glad to see several things I mentioned earlier have been addressed. I have some suggestions for the new explanation of the Erligang/Shang:
    • Does "stratified" mean "having a strict social hierarchy"?
    • I would reword the second sentence of Background and historiography for clarity, along the lines of: "The Erligang has been controversially identified by Chinese archaeologists as the early Shang dynasty. The Shang are the second of three pre-imperial dynasties identified within traditional Chinese historiography."
    • Although kinda implied by that sentence, you don't explain why linking Erligang with the Shang is controversial. I wonder if the word "legendary" should be added here somewhere. Specifically, the problem seems to be that Chinese historiography morphs at some point from legends into actual history, and that line is blurry, hence the controversy in pinning down potential legends to archaeological sites.
    • I tried checking the source for this part, which is available by TWL here, but you've only listed two page numbers so I'm not exactly sure which parts you based this off of. Those page numbers should probably be updated.
  • Yin vs. Yinxu – the archaeological site is Yinxu, the then-capital city was Yin. I think it would be simplest to settle on one or the other for the article (probably Yin), since wording like "the Shang capital of Yin (or Yinxu)" or "hairpins likely imported from Yinxu" is wrong; the capital was not "Yinxu", it was "Yin". OTOH, "initial excavations at Yinxu in 1928" is correct. If you are going to use both, remember that they are not interchangeable. (UPDATE: After reading SilverTiger's comments below, it appears Yin may not actually be what the Shang people called it at the time. TIL. However, I'm not sure how I feel about switching entirely to "the Yinxu site". You'd have to say things like "the Shang capital at the Yinxu site", which is really weird to me. No idea how to solve this.)
  • Could you please clarify what "elite centers" means? Urban centers? Headquarters of the social elite? In what sense were they elite – political power, religious authority? Since this word comes up again later it is important to define.
    • Rephrased. - G
  • "despite surveys having revealed" – how on Earth did surveys reveal this? What kind of "surveys" were they? I am curious how hundreds of sites were apparently discovered en masse.
    • I had no idea how to access the source (Zhongguo Shehuikexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2003. Zhongguo kaoguxue: Xia Shang Juan.) Due to this, I'm going to just take out any specific figure so as not to mislead.
  • "Western" in "Western archaeologists" should probably be capitalized, see e.g. Western culture.
    • Done. - G
  • The narrative jump from the 1928 understanding to contemporary study to Western views before 1990 is a little disorienting, is there a better way to order/frame this? Perhaps the 1928 part and contemporary parts can be combined, since they have a similar focus.
    • Done. - G
  • "revealing an usually detailed perspective on ancient village layouts" – for some reason this reads oddly. I'm guessing they revealed a village layout, which gave them unusually detailed or complete information, but the excavation itself didn't reveal perspective...I hope that makes sense. Also, "unusually" is misspelled.
    • Rephrased. - G
  • I don't think the abbreviation (CASS) is needed, it is never used again.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "As of 2018" – Do you have any more recent data?
    • No, there hasn't been excavations since. - G
  • Since there is no corresponding Wikipedia article, it would be useful to have the Chinese name of Mount Tan (檀山) in brackets or in a footnote afterwards. Also, the source calls it a "low" mountain, whereas the article says "small" mountain. Technically these are slightly different, I would prefer to match the source, but this is really nitpicky.
    • Reworded. -G
  • More extreme nitpicking: the article says "nearby Zhengzhou and Yanshi were major urban centers", but according to their respective Wikipedia articles the Zhengzhou site was quite certainly not called "Zhengzhou" at the time, and it is unlikely that the Yanshi site was called "Yanshi" at the time. It might be worth rewording to something like "two major urban centers nearby were in what is now Zhengzhou and Yanshi".
    • Reworded. - G
  • "possibly of the She (舌) lineage evidenced by bronze inscriptions" needs a comma, probably "lineage, as evidenced..."
    • Fixed. - G
  • "The site primarily dates to the Anyang period, stretching from the subperiods of Anyang I to III (c. 1250 – c. 1100 BCE)" This part needs an explanation. Late Shang says that "Late Shang" and "Anyang period" are equivalent. I'm guessing that it is called the "Anyang period" since the capital, Yin, was near modern-day Anyang, whereas in earlier Shang periods it was elsewhere, but the article doesn't say this directly. Last but not least, what are these subperiods?
    • Rephrased and added context and footnotes. - G
  • "as reflected in Yinxu itself" should say "at Yinxu".
    • Done. - G
  • "limited to the Anyang" – 1. Grammatically, should be "limited to Anyang". 2. huh?? Anyang is somewhere completely different! The lead says it's 200 km away! The current wording seems to say that the "area of active habitation" from the Shang dynasty to the end of the Qing excluded a 200-km radius around the Guandimiao site or something.
    • Oops, yeah, that's worded poorly - fixed. - G
  • The sentence beginning "Around seven generations..." could be reworded as: "The village was occupied over roughly 150 years; assuming a generation length of 20 years, this was around seven generations." This wording emphasizes the 150 years figure, which is more important, and de-emphasizes the number of generations, which is only estimated in the source to convert the number of tombs into a population count. In fact, it might be better to go further and simply write: "The village was occupied over roughly 150 years, or around seven generations."
    • Good point - reworded. - G
  • "Evidence of human activity at Guandimiao is attested from ..." I am no archaeologist, but I believe the correct grammar is "Evidence of human activity at Guandimiao has been found from from ..." or "Human activity at Guandimiao is attested from ...", not both "evidence" and "attested".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "basic, if informal" accurately reflects the source, but it is frustratingly vague. Not sure if there is anything you can do about this, though. OTOH, page 1516 of "Guandimiao: a Shang village site and its significance" has an excellent map of the site that could probably be vectorized and uploaded to Commons...
  • "Almost 1,500 small pits" – the source says "1472 pits of various shapes, sizes and function, although storage and waste disposal were probably the main functional categories". I do not see the value of simplifying 1472 to "Almost 1,500", and the source does not say that the pits were small. Since some of them had stairs, they were probably pretty large. The source also emphasizes that storage and waste disposal were the main functions, which I believe the article should emphasize too.
    • Reworded. - G
  • Side note: "the aforementioned ... sacrificial deposits" might refer to "Sacrificial pits are distributed across the site, but as with the tombs, they also cluster in the south-western excavation area." on page 1517 or "some were accompanied by dog sacrifices, typically placed in a small pit below the waist of the deceased (i.e. 'waist pit')" on page 1522. It bothers me how this is unclear in the source.
  • Those houses are tiny! "The southern side of each dwelling faced south"...woah, this practice is older than I thought...
    • Oops, that's a hilarious sentence. Reworded. - G
  • "No information ... are evidenced" – this wording bugs me, like the evidence/attested thing above, plus information is, not are. I suggest rewording as "No information ... was found" or something like that.
    • Reworded. - G
  • I am curious as to the material of the grates. The source unfortunately doesn't say. Ceramic, bronze, something else? Would be cool if you could find out.
  • "sand-tempered" should link to Temper (pottery), but that page is so lacking that I wouldn't mind if you chose not to. Maybe you could try explaining it briefly in the article.
    • Dear lord, you weren't lying. I wish I was a pottery specialist! - G
  • After checking ref 10 for the ceramic exports, I think it should be mentioned that the export theory is based on the large volume of ceramic production, "far beyond that necessary for provisioning such a small population".
    • Rephrased. -G
  • "export across the surrounding region" – do the sources say how big this "surrounding region" is?
    • No, alas.
  • I understand why the refs in "c. 1900 BCE[20]).[10][21]" are placed where they are, but it might be nicer to have ref 20 after the period too. I don't know what the rules say on this one.
    • Moved it, it looks nicer and I don't think its confusing. - G
  • "... is uncertain: the pottery ..." Since both parts before and after the colon are full sentences, I believe "The" should be capitalized.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "exported to Yinxu itself" – another case where I think "Yin" should be used instead of "Yinxu".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "relatively far from any known rivers" – when I read this, I remembered that a specific figure had been given above (6 km), but a reader skimming parts of the article might not see that, or might have forgotten by now. If you could find an elegant way to repeat that 6 km figure in the Wells section, that would be great.
    • Added. - G
  • I think sickles and chisels should be linked on first use. Many people probably know what those are, but I'm sure there are also people out there who haven't read Asterix or analyzed Communist symbolism.
    • Done. - G
  • I would split the stone implements and the seashell tools into two different sentences, simply because reading "sickles ... alongside sickles" looks funny.
    • Fixed. -G
  • "Many of the other tools at least some ..." is missing a word.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "may have been made by a part-time craftsperson" – Does this mean they are more skilled or less skilled than the hasty unskilled labor above? Nowadays "part-time" seems like very little, but perhaps back then it was a lot. In the same vein, I assume all workers in this village were "part-time" and had several roles; in a society so far from our modern understanding of time and labor the phrase seems very out of place.
    • Hmm, fair point. It means more skilled labour - tried to rephrase this. -G
  • I think "likely" or "presumably" should be added before "requiring large amounts".
    • Done. - G
  • "These were likely imported from workshops at Yinxu" indirectly contradicts the earlier statement that pottery was probably not exported to Yin due to the distance. I've checked the sources, though, and these claims are both verifiable...from the same group of authors, no less. I think the page numbers in ref 26 should include pages 307–308 also, since I think those had the clearest summary of the imported goods theory and reasoning.
    • Well, it makes more sense that arrowheads (which were not produced nearby) were imported, while ceramics (which were produced locally) weren't. (Also, if I'm thinking of the ref you're thinking of, doesn't it include that already?)
  • Since only four arrowheads were found, I think the order of "arrowheads and hairpins" should be reversed to "hairpins and arrowheads". The source, Hou et al., uses the latter order.
    • Fixed. -G
  • While searching through Hou et al., I found the sentence "They probably did not possess such tools, since there is very little bronze at Guandimiao in general." I find this fascinating and I think the lack of bronze should be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps in the "scarcity of weaponry" paragraph.
    • Added. - G
  • "an extreme paucity of grave goods have been found" – can one really find a lack of something? There must be a less oxymoronic way to word this.
    • Rephrased. - G
  • "The largest tomb at the site, M3, ..." Not sure if mentioning "M3" is necessary here, since this is some arbitrary designation given by modern researchers and not the actual name of the tomb, and it doesn't come up again.
    • Removed. -G
  • "contained inner and outer coffins" – is there only one body, or several?
    • Just one, rephrased. - G
  • "... around 10% of those found at the similarly-sized contemporary Xiaomintun site at Anyang" – the wording here needs improvement for clarity. "10% the number" would clarify that it is not one-tenth of the same remains, while "contemporary, similarly-sized" is a little more elegant. I don't really like the word "contemporary", though, since within this one article it is used both to mean "present day"/"now" and "at the time"/"Shang dynasty". If I had my way I would erase it from history and archaeology altogether...
    • Removed some mentions of contemporary, cause good point. - G
  • "Although the Guandimiao villagers likely ate small quantities of meat..." – This whole sentence is confusing. First they ate a little meat. Then they had a lot of cattle. Then they exported the cattle, so they have less cattle. By the end of the sentence I am thoroughly confused as to whether they had a lot, some, or very little cattle and where it all ended up (eaten by the villagers or exported to Yin or somewhere else to be eaten by the elite).
    • Rephrased. - G
  • If pig remains are predominant in domestic disposal, what other kinds of disposal are there? Is this as opposed to the sacrificial pits?
    • Rephrased. - G

Thank you for sticking with me through this exceptionally long and nitpicky review. The article was a very interesting read, and due to the limited number and easy availability of the sources (via TWL) I might do a source review later this week, if no-one else has gotten around to it by then.

  • @Toadspike: There we go! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now – I officially support this FAC on prose. Two small things remain: First, of the Anyang subperiods in footnote b, three have overlapping ranges (e.g. 1220 is in two subperiods), but one doesn't (to 1102, then from 1101), which is inconsistent. Are these the date ranges given by the source? JSTOR/TWL are acting up so I can't check myself. Also, the end date for Anyang III in the footnote is 1102 BCE, but in the prose it's 1100 BCE – the prose should probably be adjusted to match the footnote. Second, "with a maximum concurrent population estimated around 100 people, with a peak of population in the early 12th century BCE" is somewhat repetitive – it basically says "max pop" twice. I think this could be condensed into "with a maximum concurrent population estimated around 100 people in the early 12th century BCE".
    I didn't do a full source review, but of the spotchecks I did out of interest and curiosity (noted in the review above) everything looked good. I'm not sure if that's good enough for FAC, but I guess it's something. Toadspike [Talk] 03:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the dates given in the source - should I just round them to the nearest decade? (And rephrased the second part). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Toadspike)

[edit]

As previously promised, I'll do a source review for this article. Sarting with Hou et al. 2018 and seeing where it takes me:

  • Footnotes 11, 13a, 13c, 13e check out. 13d, 24, and 25 look good. Footnote 30 checks out (also covers 27b). 27d and 32 check out.
  • Footnotes 13b and 16 are used to cite a paragraph including "the village was likely part of a broader region around Zhengzhou administrated by a local lord" – while both sources say that the site was in the Zhengzhou region and may have been administered by a local lord, neither source says that said local lord controlled the "broader region around Zhengzhou". Also, I think "administered" is much more common usage than "administrated"; though I hesitate to call the latter incorrect, I advise swapping to the former.
    • Rephrased. - G
  • 13e: Good job coming up with better wording than the authors themselves here. I suggest adding "the differences in the pottery and" right after "Due to", since that seems like an important part of the authors' logic.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Footnotes 27a and 28 check out. I am shocked at how closely bone awls can be analyzed.

Continuing with Hou et al. 2019 (confusingly similar name):

  • Footnote 10a looks good. Footnotes 10b and 14 do not mention Yulong specifically, though I assume a source for this is easy to find. Otherwise they look good.
    • I actually couldn't find a source, so I just removed that. - G
  • Note 31 looks good. Seeing two graphs of "Pig Survivorship" was amusing.
  • Notes 27f and 33 mostly check out, but there are some issues:
    • "in comparison to those within the Shang urban core" – I would specify "non-elite" here, since Li, Campbell & Hou 2018 goes out of its way to mention that phrase twice – they aren't comparing these villagers to the Shang kings, just regular urban folk.
    • Done. - G
    • "only about 7% of cattle at Xiaomintun died above 4 or 5 years of age" – this is not within the cited footnotes. It is actually given as a direct quote on page 341 of Hou et al. 2019, which itself cites "Li, Campbell, et al., 2014, p. 73". Although I would prefer that you cite the latter source, it isn't in the article yet and if you can't access it I am okay with you citing p. 341 of Hou et al. 2019 instead.
    • Added p. 341
    • "pig remains are predominant in waste disposal pits" is much more specific than the source, Hou et al. 2019, which says "pigs dominating domestic contexts". The source never uses the terms "waste" or "disposal", but it explains what is meant by "domestic contexts" on page 337 as any remains not in a tomb or a ritual sacrifice. Please cite another source here or generalize the article's wording.
    • rephrased. - G
  • Notes 27g and 34 also mostly check out. Part of the issue is the ref placement – I believe ref 34 is supposed to apply to the whole paragraph, but currently it only looks like it covers the part after ref 27g. I strongly advise either moving both refs to the end of the paragraph, or repeating ref 34 twice, once right after 27g and once at the end of the paragraph.
    • Fixed. - G
    • "The remains of sheep and some goats have been found" – I would reword this to emphasize that both were very rare. Ref 34 says "goats (Caprus sp.) were very rare" and "Sheep and goat, by contrast, appear to have been quite rare at the site (4% NISP, 2% weight, 4% MNI)". These numbers make them as rare as wild animals.
      • Fixed. - G
    • Sitka deer is an error – the source says sika deer. Since both articles have a "Not to be confused with" hatnote, you are forgiven for being confused.
      • Fixed. - G
    • "Many dogs resided in the village" – while the rest of this sentence is verifiable, and footnote 34 backs up that a lot of dog remains were found, it doesn't directly say that there were "many dogs". This might be a bit nitpicky, but given that they mention why certain animal remains might be overrepresented in the archaeological record due to (among other things) dogs gnawing on bones and dog remains being safe from gnawing within tombs, I believe the distinction is important.
      • Rephrased. - G

Campbell 2014 (thanks for the excerpts!):

  • Note 17 looks good, note 25 (covered above) also good.

I covered much of Li, Campbell & Hou 2018 above, esp. the much-repeated note 27. More here:

  • Note 6 checks out. It says very many other interesting things, too, but this article contains sufficient background info.
  • Notes 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12e are good. I am not sure why Note 18 exists; its only use seems to be verifying the date range of the Yangshao culture, which is covered by Note 12 already. Unless the Yangshao culture is discussed in further detail, it can be removed.
    • Removed Note 18. -G
  • 12d: "only the western portion of the village was occupied" – the source is not so categorical, I suggest removing "only" or using something like "mostly" or "primarily" instead. I also think it is important to mention that phase II "make[s] up the majority of the Anyang-period remains". Something similar is mentioned when discussing population in the next paragraph, but I think a note specifically on remains would be important.
    • rephrased. - G
  • Skipping Note 14, since everything it covers was verified by Note 10 already.
  • I checked Note 19 in my earlier review.

@Generalissima: I'm going to take a break here. The few issues I've found are really minor details and by now I've checked most of this article's sourcing. I might do some more checks tomorrow, but I might also decide to simply pass this once you've fixed the stuff noted above. Toadspike [Talk] 05:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

[edit]

I have some comments, but can't guarantee a full review since I'll be busy the next three weeks. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erligang culture vs Shang dynasty vs Late Shang/Anyang: this is my major issue, which that there seem to be several different things being referred to, but you're connecting these terms in ways that make them synonyms or near-synonyms. From what I can gather after clicking around between several articles (less than ideal):
    • There's the semi-fictitious Shang dynasty of classical Chinese histories.
    • Oh, but the Shang dynasty is also divided in half, but only the second half has a distinct name—two, in fact, the Late Shang aka Anyang period.
    • There's the archeological Erligang culture, which is sometimes [controversially] linked to the early Shang dynasty.
    • And then in the Background section you mention a "Late Shang material culture"...?
    • After giving this much though, I think the problem is dynasty vs archeology, and this "Late Shang [period]" seems to swivel between the two. It needs to either be a archeological culture (Late Shang/Anyang culture?) or a section of the Shang dynasty (which is what Late Shang period implies).
    • And then split/rewrite the first paragraph of the Background section to first discuss the Shang dynasty of classical Chinese histories and the problem of its [lack of] historicity, before connecting it to and introducing the Erligang and Anyang cultures.
  • I agree with Toadspike that you should try to use Commons' one image of the site.
    • Done. - G
  • Yin vs Yinxu: reading Toadspike's comments above, I did some digging: Yinxu is the site, Yin is what the succeeding Zhou called the city, and Dàyì Shāng is what contemporary oracle bones called the place. I think you should stick to Yinxu.
    • Done, added footnote. - G
    • I.e. ...began with the emergence of the Shang capital of Yin (or Yinxu) at the Yinxu site,...
    • Done. - G
  • Did excavation of the site end in 2018?
    • From what I can tell there was only one excavation in 2006-2008. Rephrased. - G
  • Related to my first point, in the Site section there's a fresh batch of period vs culture confusion. I strongly recommend picking culture and sticking to it.

Support from UC

[edit]

Saving a space. Could you ping me once the two reviewers above are coming to a close? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I think all the concerns in the first two reviews have been addressed now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as the layout of rural villages, which have received comparatively little attention in the field of Shang archaeology compared to urban centers like Yinxu and Huanbei.: which had received, unless this is still true despite the work at Guandimiao?
    • There we go, fixed. - G
  • . The presence of 23 kilns at the site suggests significant regional exports of ceramics from the village: significant does in these days get used to mean "big", though in theory we should have an answer to "what does it signify, then?" Might go for "large-scale"?
    • Fixed. - G
  • as well as large sacrificial pits where mainly cattle had been buried, alongside a smaller number of pigs and humans: are we talking about human sacrifice here? The body text keeps it vague: if we're not, I'd advise being categoric about that.
    • Annoyingly, the text doesn't explicitly say there was human sacrifice at the site, only that there was rarely human remains in sacrificial pits. Added rarely to note that these were scarce at least.
  • an almost complete absence of grave goods beyond occasional cowries: suggest cowrie shells, as they probably weren't buried with whole snails.
    • Good point. - G
  • The ancient Shang dynasty (c. 1600 – c. 1046 BCE) of China was traditionally known only from much later accounts: covers a multitude of sins (do we mean "previously" or "according to normative practice": can we be more specific ("Before the twentieth century, the ancient Shang dynasty...")
    • Fixed. - G
  • Hyphenate "oracle-bone inscriptions".
    • Done. - G
  • The village was occupied over roughly 150 years: for roughly 150 years?
    • Fixed. - G
  • Limited later human activity at Guandimiao is attested from the Zhou, Han, Tang, Song, and Qing dynasties.: can we give a sense via dates of when we're actually talking about here?
    • Done. - G
  • basic, if informal: I don't quite understand the "if" here; that normally means that the two descriptions contrast with each other, but both seem to be saying the same thing. I assume we're translating here?
    • Comment from Toadspike: That odd phrase is a direct quote from the source, which should be accessible via the Wikipedia Library. (I noticed it in my review, too.) I think the idea is that "basic" might imply a simple, orderly layout (e.g. a grid), so "informal" contrasts with that in implying a messy layout.
      • Yeah, I have no idea how to summarize this in a way that I'm confident I'm not misinterpreting, so I just left the quote.
  • 22 pit-houses have been found at the site. All are small rectangular or circular pits: all are build around or similar (the house is not a pit; it's also a structure on top of it).
    • Fixed. - G
  • likely restricted to only "cooking meals, eating and sleeping" within the cramped houses: quotes need to be attributed in text, but I don't see a good reason to make this a quote at all: it's three very pedestrian gerunds that could hardly be claimed as a piece of creative expression.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Guandimiao relied on well water: perhaps slightly clearer as water from wells? "Well" can be an adjective or adverb as well as a noun.
    • Fixed. - G
  • A remarkable scarcity of weaponry has been recovered from Guandimiao. The only likely weapons found at the site are four arrowheads (two bone, two bronze) and a single knife. This is an extremely scarce quantity when compared to the frequently recovered weapons from excavations at Anyang, or to the massive weapon caches buried alongside many Late Shang nobles.: I wonder if this isn't backwards: isn't it also possible that the quantity of weapons at an elite site like those in Anyang or a noble burial might be unusually large?
    • Comment from Toadspike: I believe current wording makes sense archaeologically, since the elite sites with lots of bronze were probably discovered first, making Guandimiao the outlier. However, you're probably right about the elite sites being the outlier at the time.
  • only about 7% of cattle remains Xiaomintun were from animals beyond 4 or 5 years of age: at Xiaomintun: I'd be happier putting a percentage on a countable noun like bones.
    • Rephrased. - G
      • We now have "only about 7% of cattle specimens recovered at Xiaomintun": I'm not sure specimens is quite the right word. When I think e.g. "elephant specimens", I think of complete elephants. Is there a reason not to use "bones"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding of the paper, they are counting the ages of separate individual cows, presumably with many represented by multiple bones - the figure wouldn't tell us much if they separately counted many bones from one relatively complete specimen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, indeed, that's the distinction I'm trying to pull out. If they're working on whole animals, I have some quibbles there (you can't actually count a total number of animals from skeletal remains; you can only calculate the minimum number of individuals you have) -- but if we mean "they found the remains of 100 cows, and only 7 were..." or similar, we could say something like "based on analysis of skeletal remains, only about 7% of the cattle found at..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhhh I see what you mean now - rephrased. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remains of older cattle are relatively common at Guandimiao, while only about 7% of cattle remains Xiaomintun were from animals beyond 4 or 5 years of age. While cattle are often found in sacrificial pits, pig remains were predominant in waste disposal pits.: suggest consistency of tense here.
    • Fixed. - G
  • ISBNs should be hyphenated consistently: you can use the format isbn template (substitute it) to do this automatically.
    • Made these consistent. - G

Really enjoyed this one; the lead, in particular, is exemplary and extremely clear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

[edit]

I'll take a seat while the reviews progress above; please ping me after UC is done so I don't parrot comments or muck things up. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UpTheOctave!: UC's seems to be wrapping up now! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a few MOS:GEOLINK problems, e.g.. "Xingyang, Henan" and "Xingyang, Zhengzhou, Henan". Please check throughout, including the infobox.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Sickles is linked twice in § Artifacts.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Em dashes in § Wells should not be spaced per MOS:DASH.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Could do with a link of cowrie shell in § Burials, sacrifices, and remains, as this is the first time it's mentioned outside the lead.
  • "around 10% the number of those found": I suggest reworking to "around 10% of the number found" for clarity.
  • "The relatively large proportion of cattle remains ... suggests local cattle farming": I wonder if we need the repetition here. It can probably be inferred that we're still talking about the cattle. Thoughts?
    • Reworded that sentence to only use 'cattle' once. - G

That's all I've got. I've mainly focussed on prose and the MOS as I'm not familiar with the subject matter; despite this, I found the page to be fully understandable. Great work here. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 01:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kanguole

[edit]

There is indeed a confusing tangle of traditional dynastic history and archaeology, not least because in China the two tend to be conflated.

It might be clearest to present the background in the order of the intellectual history:

  • Until the early 20th century, the Shang dynasty was known only from accounts written centuries later and codified by Sima Qian. Some scholars doubted whether it existed.
  • Excavations at Anyang found an ancient city and inscriptions written by people calling themselves "Shang", mostly verifying Sima Qian's king list and dated to the last nine kings. This period was labelled the Late Shang.
  • Archaeologists then went looking for earlier cities mentioned in the traditional history. They found the Erligang culture, including cities at Zhengzhou and Yanshi. They called this the Early Shang. The controversial aspect is that unlike the Late Shang, this identification is driven by the traditional account, with no contemporaneous inscriptions to confirm it.

Then the rest of the article could just use the archaeological terms.

Late Shang is a term of both archeology and historiography. Some archeaologists use Anyang period.

We know that the Late Shang called their capital (the phrase pronounced today as) Dàyì Shāng 'Great settlement Shang', but we don't know the names applied to any other places then or earlier. In the literature, the capital is usually called Yinxu or Anyang. As SilverTiger says above, Yin is a name from the traditional history and not the inscriptions. (Yinxu means 'Yin ruins', but it has become the common name.) It's also common to call the Erligang-period cities by the modern names Yanshi and Zhengzhou (especially the latter, which is under modern Zhengzhou). Kanguole 18:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "administrated"/"administered": The first is the word in Zhang's thesis, but both seem to imply a bureaucratic government structure that would be more appropriate for later periods. The journal article Hou et al has "under the sway of", which seems safer. The She (舌) connection relies on footnote 13 of the thesis, where the argument appears too tenuous to call "as evidenced by", and also does not specify which period the bronze inscriptions come from. (They were far more plentiful in the Zhou period.) This may be a case where we shouldn't be relying on the thesis. Kanguole 09:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - removed that portion. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Generalissima, my comments:

  • Link to Henan in the lead as done in the infobox?
    • Done. - G
  • We refer to the Shang capital as Yin, then later refer to it differently as Yinxu. I thought these were two different cities until I saw the article on them. Consider standardizing on a consistent name?
    • Rephrased and added a footnote. - G
  • Consider adding 10.1353/asi.2018.0018 as the DOI and 165843575 as the S2CID for Hou et al. 2018? These are the minimum identifiers I've found to be considered necessary for scientific articles on Wikipedia.
    • I don't think S2CID is needed (I have never used those on a history article), but I added DOIs to everything. - G
  • Consider adding the page numbers for Hou et al. 2018 and 2019? Also add the page numbers for both sources in the Further reading section?
    • Done. - G
  • There are no citations to Bagley 1999. Either remove or incorporate it?
    • Incorporated. - G
  • Add 10.1017/CBO9781139015301 as the DOI for Liu & Chen 2012, as done for Loewe & Shaughnessy 1999? Also, add the location of publication (Cambridge and New York) for this source?
    • Added DOIs, decided to removed locations.
  • Add Li Suting as the author of the first source in the Further reading section?
    • While he did work on it, that's not how it's cited in the sources which cite it - I assume it's a group project where the whole institute is credited at once.

That's all from me. Also, please check out the comments at the Zhao Chongguo ACR. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

Background and historiography
  • Could you link historiography as it has not been done anywhere else in the article?
Done. - G
MSincccc (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima I have no further improvements to suggest for the article. Good luck with your nomination. Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from PMC

[edit]

No major concerns, just cite your source and we're good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passes image review, well done on another excellent FAC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another nom?

[edit]

(Copied from FAC Talk.) @FAC coordinators: Dear coords: Is it okay to put another FAC up now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it has passed a source review. Or have I missed that in my skim? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't what Matarisvan did a source review? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. Eg it doesn't say "Source review" nor "pass" or "fail". It looks like a brief general review with some mention of the sources, However Yo! ((u|Matarisvan}} :-) . Is your review above a general review, or a source review, or both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Matarisvan, my formatting error! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima, you may start another nom if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I am not sure the prose is up to FA standard. For example, there are six uses of "as well as", three of them in the lead. Perhaps just "and" would suffice occasionally? There is also redundancy, for example "located", (five of them) instead of a simple "in". I have taken the liberty of making one edit. I would like to see another review focused on the prose.?Graham Beards (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find that as well as can reduce ambiguity when there's already an "and" clause in a sentence - but you're right that some of those uses are unnecessary. I removed some of the redundant word choices you mentioned. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more nitpicks:

  • Can we do something about starting sentences with numerals as in "22 pit-houses have been found at the site." And "23 updraft kilns have been discovered at Guandimiao."? There is inconsistency because elsewhere we have, ""Seventeen large circular sacrificial pits have been found at Guandimiao," "A total of 1472 pits were dug at the site," and "A total of 228 Late Shang-era graves have been found at the site". Also, the use of "a total of" is not ideal. Can these sentences be recast to avoid this issue? (See MOS:NUMNOTES)
    • Straightened these out to be consistent. - G
  • There is a fused participle here, "with its opening having dimensions". How about, "its opening measures"?
    • Good idea - fixed. - G
  • Something is missing here, "Some graves are accompanied by dog sacrifices." Should it be "the remains of" or "evidence of"?
    • Rephrased. - G
  • The quantifiers here could be polished, "A very small amount of ", "a small number" and "small numbers of", how about trying "few" and "little" for example?
    • Good point, cut these down a little. - G
  • I see Zhang, Yan (2022) is a PhD thesis. What evidence is there of its being a reliable source?
    • Zhang is a zooarchaeologist who specializes in the period, and the thesis advisor for the paper was Roderick Campbell, a well-established archaeologist with a focus on the Late Shang. I think it fits the bounds of expert self-publication, especially since its use is limited to supply context alongside other sources. -G

-Graham Beards (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of making a few minor edits rather than list the points here. I am pleased to add my support now. Graham Beards (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Optional: "Excavation and study at Guandimiao has significantly broadened scholars' understanding of rural Shang economies and rituals, as well as the layout of rural villages, which had received comparatively little attention in the field of Shang archaeology compared to urban centers like Yinxu and Huanbei." Removing "in the field of Shang archaeology" would shorten a long sentence without IMO a reader being deprived of any information.
    • Done. - G
  • "hairpins likely imported from Anyang, where facilities had produced them en masse." The switch in tense is a little odd. Ie "likely imported" and "had produced". Suggest deleting "had".
  • "Besides an almost complete absence of grave goods beyond occasional cowrie shells and sacrificed dogs, they generally resemble shaft tombs found elsewhere in ancient China." "Besides"? Do you mean 'Apart from'? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Guandimiao/archive1&oldid=1288891755"