Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"The Song were", "The Song had fought with the Jin for several decades, and lost all of its": Is "the Song" singular or plural? Be consistent. Most would say it's plural.
I can't tell you how Wikipedians in general handle navboxes like {{Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty}}, but history FAs, and particularly MilHist FAs, don't insert them into running text; if they're used at all, they go at the end of the article. If you want to introduce this information in the text, write it out, including the links.
The last paragraph covers the numbers of casualties. Is there anything in particular that is ambiguous or in need of fixing?--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not very well written, but I won't withhold support over it. Perhaps another reviewer will take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Song may have surmised that the Jin were planning for a military offensive when they noticed that the attitude of one of the diplomats sent by the Jin had changed.": Don't report what was in people's heads (even if some historian puts it that way), report on what they did. (There's an exception to this advice, btw, at WP:Checklist#mindreading, but it doesn't apply here.) What did the Song do that suggests that they expected a military offensive? What did the diplomat do that suggested their attitude had changed?
Now fixed. The History of Song alleges that a Jin diplomat "behaved insolently", and that this led them to believe that Jin were preparing to invade.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Song fortified border defenses ahead of the invasion, but preparations had been delayed because of Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin.": This would be easier for the reader to parse in chronological order ... presumably, the delay came first, unless I'm misunderstanding. It's not clear to me what was or wasn't done to prepare. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see a battle from this period and region covered like this.
File:Songrivership3.jpg; I'm presuming that this will need US and Chinese licensing tags to cover the underlying image? (Jieming can approve the photograph/scan, but he didn't make the original image).
Support This is a high quality article. I've made a brief copy-edit . One point I have to bring up is that ref 23 (Tao 2009) doesn't have a page number. Other than that, I have no problem with the article. 23 editor (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport – The nominator quickly and competently solved all the issues I raised (see collapsed list below). The article is now clearly written, accurate, fully referenced, and, as far as I can tell, complete. I've read all the main academic sources carefully – Chan 1992, Franke 1994, Mote 1999, Needham 1971 and 1987, and Tao 2002 and 2009 – and didn't find a single turn of phrase taken from them in the article. There is one DAB link to saltpeter (which I added myself), but that's because Joseph Needham speaks of the "nitrate" content of a gunpowder recipe without specifying what kind of nitrate it is, and "saltpeter" refers to four different kinds of nitrate that could go into making gunpowder, so I think the link is justified. In any case, Battle of Caishi is ready for WP's main page! T'was a pleasure working with you again, Khanate General! Madalibi (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! Madalibi (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solved issues
Hi Khanate General! It's nice to see that you keep lifting these articles to featured status. This is again a high-quality article that should have no problem passing. I've already made a few edits to improve style and to put a number of sentences in the active voice.[2] Feel free to revert if you think I modified the meaning of anything or inserted mistakes into the text! My comments won't be as long as for Jin–Song Wars, but I've still found a few issues. Let me start with the first three paragraphs of the "Background" section, which I think are the softest.
You should probably add a few words about what the Jin and Song dynasties were. Where in the world are we? Where (with a link or two to places in modern-day China) did the Jin originate? Were the Jurchens sea invaders, nomads from the western steppes, or forest dwellers from the north? (Just a few words to situate the reader.) And where was their first capital? (This will become relevant when Prince Hailing moves it southward.)
This "Background" section is about Jin-Song relations in general. It would read better if it mentioned more people and events that become relevant further down in the article. That way it would become more targeted on the Battle of Caishi itself. Because the battle took place when the Jin army tried to cross the Yangtze, I think previous Jin attempts to cross that river deserve more attention. The 1129-1130 campaign led by Wanyan Wuzhu looks particularly relevant, because (1) it was the most successful Jin campaign south of the Yangtze ever, (2) it almost led to the capture of Song emperor Gaozong (who was still emperor in 1161 when Hailing attacked), and (3) Wuzhu and his troops had trouble with the Song navy when trying to cross back north. All three points (in two or three sentences) would enhance the background section. Most of the details and references are already in the third paragraph Jin-Song Wars#The move south.
Gaozong's fear of the Jin and his constant pushing for peace could also be mentioned, because they also become relevant below. Well, I now see that they are mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, but I'd say this is too far below.
Another relevant point is that the 1142 treaty banned the trade of horses (and many other commodities) in markets along the Jin-Song border (see Tao 2009:684), but smuggling went on all along anyway. This little detail will come alive below when you say that Hailing took the Song purchasing of horses in border markets as a pretext for war.
Wars between the Jin Dynasty, founded by the Jurchens, and the Song Dynasty had been ongoing since 1125: "wars had been ongoing" sounds a bit too colloquial for an encyclopedia, and the war had actually stopped in 1142, so this first sentence is misleading. Maybe you could explain the Song-Jin military alliance before you move on to the 1125 declaration of war? I think the narrative would flow better that way.
Now fixed. "Ongoing" changed to "commenced", and the first sentence moved to the bottom of the paragraph so that it comes after the Jin-Liao wars.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 05:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Song and Jurchens: why not Song and Jin, which are two dynastic names?
plotted a revolt in 1114: if you're going to choose an important date here, I think you should pick 1115, the date of the foundation of the Jin as an imperial dynasty. Or you could mention both.
They negotiated a joint attack with the Song against the Khitans planned for 1121 and then rescheduled to 1122: this sentence sounds awkward, maybe because its core is "they negotiated an attack planned and then rescheduled". Rephrase?
In 1122, the Jurchens defeated the Khitans and captured the Liao capital. After the fall of the Liao...: This wording misleadingly implies that the Liao had one capital, and that the Liao fell in 1122 after the Jin captured it. As you know, the Liao had five capitals, and the Jin had already taken the Liao Supreme Capital in 1120. In 1122 they captured the Central Capital and the Liao did not fall right away. The Liao only collapsed in 1123 after the Jin had taken the Liao's Southern Capital Yanjing, which the Song had failed to capture. Mentioning the Song failure would also be a great anchor for the claim (two sentences down) that the Song were militarily weak.
Now fixed. The Jin captured the Liao Supreme and Western Capitals in 1122. The Song tried to capture the Southern Capital, but failed. The Liao Southern Capital fell to the Jin at the end of that year. The Liao collapsed in 1125 after the capture of the last Liao emperor Tianzuo.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
diplomatic relations deteriorated: a very brief mention of why (i.e., Song demands for territory were out of proportion with their military contributions) would help.
established a temporary capital first in Nanjing, modern Shangqiu: using "Nanjing" here will be confusing, because you also refer to the modern city of Nanjing below. Change to "the Song southern capital" or Yingtianfu?
Qinzong's younger brother, Prince Zhao Gou, avoided capture by the Jurchens and was enthroned as Qinzong's successor in Nanjing on 1127: I think it's relevant to say here that Zhao Gou is Gaozong, who was emperor of Song when Hailing attacked.
Hailing considered himself a Chinese emperor and not a tribal chieftain: well, previous Jin emperors were also emperors, and they considered the Song emperor as a vassal, so they certainly did not consider themselves as "tribal chieftains"! This means the contrast is not between emperor and chieftain, but between Chinese emperor and something else. Could you clarify what that something else is?
The contrast is now between "Chinese emperor" and "Jurchen tribal chieftain", but this still doesn't work. Hailing was already much more than a Jurchen tribal chieftain: he was emperor of the Great Jin and was even ritually superior to the Song emperor thanks to the 1142 treaty. You make his ambitions clear, but the contrast is still misleading. Could you reword again? Madalibi (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Franke does make that contrast. He says that Hailing marks the last phase of transition from a more collective and clan-dominated leadership to monarchic autocracy. Jurchen leaders before Hailing held the title of emperor, but their governance more closely resembled the predynastic tribal council than the authoritarian Chinese-style imperial bureaucracy. Pages 269 and 270 of CHC: The proliferation of offices was greatest under Hai-ling wang, who did much to transform the Chin state from a tribal and aristocratic body politic into a Chinese bureaucracy. --Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the word "chieftain" I have problems with, then. Franke says that Hailing wanted to become a Chinese ruler instead of a Jurchen leader. He's making a contrast between two styles of rule (Chinese and Jurchen) rather than two positions (emperor and chieftain). I think this is a different kind of comparison that the one proposed in the article. I don't know, maybe the contrast could be with "a local emperor who ruled with Jurchen institutions", or something? Madalibi (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. "Chinese emperor instead of a Jurchen leader" changed to "Chinese authoritarian ruler rather than a Jurchen leader of a tribal council".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
conquest, absolute power, and women: interesting bit! "Conquest" and "absolute power" are reasonable one-word summaries from the source, but the plural "women" is perhaps misleading, as Tao 2002:150 says that his third ambition was "to marry the most beautiful girl in the world"! This is a very minor point, though, so feel free to ignore it.
Hmmm, no! As I said, this is a minor point, so just forget about it. Madalibi (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under his rule, the capital of the Jin Dynasty was moved...: no need for a passive voice, here. Who moved the capital? And where was it moved from? (Could echo the "Background" section.)
That year, he claimed that the Song had broken a treaty signed in 1142 that regulated the acquisition of horses by the Song. "The 1142 treaty" would be very clear, because the treaty was just discussed above. Also, "regulated" is not strong enough. Tao 2009:684 says that the 1142 "banned the export of horses" to the Song.
The mass execution of 130 people in the span of a few months: by the standards of the time, I thought "mass execution" would have meant killing thousands of people in a few days rather than 130 in a few months. Remove "mass"? Also, it should be made clearer who was executed: was it rebels, people at the court, Khitans, a mix of all, or some other group of people?
the Khitans soon revolted: all of them in an organized fashion, or just a few sub-tribes here and there? It would also be useful for the reader to know in what part of the Jin empire the Khitans lived or where he revolts took place.
Now fixed. The revolt took place in Manchuria. The article already describes the revolt as disorganized and fragmented.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the run-up to the war: too colloquial for an encyclopedia?
Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin: this is the first time we hear the name "Gaozong" (see my comments on the "Background" section above). Tao 2009:708 says that in 1161 Gaozong "chose to continue to believe in the peace with Chin, despite reports of an impending invasion". This theme of Gaozong's belief in peace is important in Tao's article on Gaozong, and I think it's relevant here, at least as much as Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin.
The Jin vessels did not have the capacity to ferry the number of soldiers needed for fighting a naval battle with the Song: did they need a larger quantity of soldiers to fight a naval battle, or do you mean something else?
the Song fleet commenced their attack, sailing around from both sides of the island: could you use another verb than "sail"; these were paddle-wheel ships, after all!
Song historians may have confused the total number of Jin soldiers deployed on the front with the number of combatants at Caishi: not clear, considering that the text just claimed that there were 120,000 Jin soldiers on the front. So how do we get to 400,000?
the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the number of Jin casualties was not greater than four thousand: Considering the number of conflicting numbers, it might be a good idea either to explain this is this the only possible conclusion, or who made this claim.
Now fixed. Attributed to Franke: It seems safe to assume that the Chin losses did not exceed more than about four thousand men. "Only" changed to "safest".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At Caishi, the Yangze River runs from south to north, so Hailing did not really try to cross from the "northern shore". It might be confusing to say "western shore", though. Maybe "left bank"? Or explain the river course and say "western shore"? (I would then add a reference to Tan Qixiang's historical atlas for verifiability.)
soldiers on the upper deck operated the ship's weaponry: what weaponry did the Jin have on their ships?
Now fixed. The source says that the walls of these two-storey ships were continuous with the hull, so that the oarsmen occupied the lower deck and were fully protected, while missile troops went into action above their heads.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Jin deployed light ships that were smaller in size and armored with thick rhinoceros hides. Jin ships had two stories; on the lower deck were the oarsmen responsible for rowing the ship, while soldiers on the upper deck operated the ship's weaponry. This sounds like more sophisticated boats than what the previous section suggests (i.e., light ships built in a week with scrap wood). Is your source about Jin ships (either Turnbull 2002 or Needham 1987, not clear which it is) talking about the battle of Caishi in particular, or about the best the Jin fleet could offer when it had time to build good ships?
Now fixed. The source is Turnbull 2002. Chan 1992 says that the Jin ordered the construction of warships in 1159 and 1162. The ships that were hastily built within a week were from 1162, to replace some of the lost 1159 ships that had been bogged down in Liangshan Lake on their way to the Grand Canal.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solved, assuming you mean 1161. Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reports that the bomb produced a loud sound suggests that the nitrate content of the gunpowder mixture was higher than normal: what is "normal", here? Does this mean higher than it would take to operate a firearm effectively? Could you clarify?
Now fixed. Needham says that But in fact this was needless, since we know now that the thunderclap bomb contained explosive gunpowder. Probably the noise was important here as the toxic-smoke, and this required this higher-nitrate mixture. Song gunpowder mixtures for explosive weapons contained a higher nitrate content than those used for incendiary weapons.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The technological gains of the Song navy ensured its access to the East China Sea for centuries: makes it sound as though the Song's gains at Caishi ensured them access to the East China Sea, which is not what you mean. Is "technological gains" the right expression, or do we mean that Song was technologically more advanced than Jin and Yuan?
"Centuries" may be an overstatement considering that the Song died out in 1279. We're talking about fewer than 200 years, here. Reword? Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paddle-wheel ships operated with treadmills were constructed between 1132 and 1183: do you mean for the first time sometime between 1129 and 1183, or that they were discontinued in 1183 (or something else)?
Now fixed. The source implies that they were constructed continuously until 1183: between +1132 (AD) and +1183 (AD) a great number of treadmill-operated paddle-wheel craft, large and small, were built, including stern-wheelers and ships with as many as 11 paddle-wheels a side. The full passage from the source used to be in older revisions of the article, before I started editing it.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a total of 11 squadrons and 3,000 men [the Song navy] rose in one century to 20 squadrons totalling 52,000 men: what hundred years is Needham referring to when he speaks of "in one century"?
The battle has been romanticized as a celebrated victory in traditional Chinese historiography: sounds awkward, and maybe redundant ("romanticized as a celebrated victory"). Could you consider using an active voice, something like "Traditional Chinese historiography celebrated the battle of Caishi as a great Song victory"?
Battle of Fei River, where the southern Eastern Jin won against northern Former Qin: indicate year of that battle to help the reader? You could also indicate the years of the two dynasties, though this may not be necessary if the date of the battle serves as anchor. the "southern Eastern Jin" also sounds a bit odd. Maybe you could rephrase to something like "where the Eastern Jin defeated northern invaders of the Former Qin"?
The Jin army withdrew in 1161, and diplomatic relations between the two states resumed: both Franke 1994:243 and Tao 2009:707 give the date as early 1162.
The Jin had discovered that southern China's many lakes and rivers impeded their cavalry:
I'll have a few more comments in the next few days, but not many. Once again, this is an excellent article, and it should pass easily once these points (and a few more to come) are addressed. All the best, Madalibi (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a few points to the list above. My comments for the main body of the text are complete. I will turn to the lede once everything has been addressed. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a source that discusses Hailing's shipbuilding activities in some detail! It's Hok-lam Chan's article "The Organization and Utilization of Labor Service under the Jurchen Chin Dynasty", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 52.2 (1992): 613–664. Pages 657 and 658 explain how he mobilized a large number of workers to build warships as early as 1159. He had them transported to the front on the Grand Canal, but a lot of them didn't arrive, so he had other ships built in a rush before the battle of Caishi. If you don't have access to an electronic database, I can transcribe the relevant passages here if you want. Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My university provides JSTOR access, so I can access the article electronically. Thank you for finding that source! I'll include it in the article.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! To clarify, only two pages of that article are about Hailing, not the entire thing. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few follow-up issues:
I like the lede as it is, because it manages to summarize the content of the article in four succinct paragraphs. No changes needed.
The sentence "Hailing made plans to move the Jin capital south to the center of China looks out of place in the middle of a paragraph on political assassinations and anti-Jin revolts. That sentence would be a good anchor for a brief explanation of why and when Hailing moved the Jin main capital to Kaifeng. And we probably need such an explanation, because the lede claims that The Jin army left the capital of Kaifeng on October 15.
Now fixed. Moved the sentence to "Preparations for the war", and gave the date for when Kaifeng became the Southern Capital.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this reads much better! Madalibi (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the non-technical content concerning Jin shipbuilding efforts before the war (that is, most content taken from Chan 1992) would fit better in other sections than "Military technology". Some material explaining Hailing's long-term preparations would go under "Preparations for the war", whereas the hasty building of light ships just before the battle would fit better under "Naval battle". What do you think?
Now fixed. I kept some of the technical details on how the warships were constructed in "Military technology", but the rest of the paragraph went to "Preparations for the war" and "Naval battle". "Military technology" was also renamed to "Military and naval technology".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's about it, and these should be my last comments before giving my formal support! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
