Talk:Shagdarjavyn Natsagdorj/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: SnowFire (talk · contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and take this one. (Trying to get my reviews-to-noms ratio cleanly ahead of par... we'll see if it works.) SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Usual disclaimer goes here that any prose suggestions are just that, suggestions, and you should feel free to push back or revise if you prefer the wording as is (unless something's REALLY wrong, which it usually isn't).
- thereafter he primarily wrote on pre-modern topics, especially Qing-era Mongolia and the struggle for Mongolian independence
- Nit: Strictly speaking, the modern era starts in 1500 or so (and some of his works are on, like, the 1800s), although the term "modern" really means whatever you want it to mean. Is there some other term than "pre-modern" that could be used? (It's fine if not, the general idea is clear enough.)
- Changed to "early modern topics" with a link to the appropriate section of History of Mongolia
- Nit: Strictly speaking, the modern era starts in 1500 or so (and some of his works are on, like, the 1800s), although the term "modern" really means whatever you want it to mean. Is there some other term than "pre-modern" that could be used? (It's fine if not, the general idea is clear enough.)
- adopt a less hardline stance
- Optional nit: There are various styles of writing on Wikipedia, with one debate being "what you'd write in a book for experts" vs. "what you'd write to make Wikilinks and where they go very clear for beginners." I would suggest being a little less concise here and instead saying "to adopt the New Turn Policy, a less hardline stance." Which makes the wikilink much more clear while also teaching a little bit about MPR history. But it's up to you.
- Changed as you sugget.
- Optional nit: There are various styles of writing on Wikipedia, with one debate being "what you'd write in a book for experts" vs. "what you'd write to make Wikilinks and where they go very clear for beginners." I would suggest being a little less concise here and instead saying "to adopt the New Turn Policy, a less hardline stance." Which makes the wikilink much more clear while also teaching a little bit about MPR history. But it's up to you.
- A decade later in 1955, Owen Lattimore and Urgunge Onon published an English translation of this work—the first translation of a biography of a revolutionary figure, it would establish Natsagdorj's reputation in the English-speaking world.
- Nit: Strictly speaking, the source only verifies that it was the first English language biography of a Mongolian Revolution figure. It doesn't verify it established his reputation, but I suppose it indirectly does in the sense that Service was still talking about it approvingly in 1979. That said, 20th century Mongolian history was an obscure topic in the West, so we're really talking more like "reputation in the English-speaking community interested in Mongolia" if we wanted to be hyper-specific. It's fine for a GA, but mentioning this now in case you wanted to take this to FAC later as something that could possibly use some clarification or better sourcing.
- You've missed the other source, which states: "In English, Academician Natsagdorj's work is known principally by his biography of the revolutionary hero Siikhbaatar...
- I checked that source. It was just a nitpick but to clarify, it's just I read something different from that sentence than what you intended. (An obscure figure might still be best known for one thing, and I think "establish reputation" was implying that Natsagdorj wasn't obscure. But it's fine.)
- You've missed the other source, which states: "In English, Academician Natsagdorj's work is known principally by his biography of the revolutionary hero Siikhbaatar...
- Nit: Strictly speaking, the source only verifies that it was the first English language biography of a Mongolian Revolution figure. It doesn't verify it established his reputation, but I suppose it indirectly does in the sense that Service was still talking about it approvingly in 1979. That said, 20th century Mongolian history was an obscure topic in the West, so we're really talking more like "reputation in the English-speaking community interested in Mongolia" if we wanted to be hyper-specific. It's fine for a GA, but mentioning this now in case you wanted to take this to FAC later as something that could possibly use some clarification or better sourcing.
- Although he initially wrote on both modern and pre-modern history, he increasingly came to focus on the latter.
- Nit: I'm not sure this is a fixable problem, but right now in the "Academic" topic paragraph, we go from 1954 to 1973, then time travel back to 1941 and mention "oh yeah he focused on older stuff." You could maybe swap the order somewhat? Up to you though, it's not a big deal.
- Rearranged
- Nit: I'm not sure this is a fixable problem, but right now in the "Academic" topic paragraph, we go from 1954 to 1973, then time travel back to 1941 and mention "oh yeah he focused on older stuff." You could maybe swap the order somewhat? Up to you though, it's not a big deal.
- His pioneer work on archiving the bureaucratic minutiae of Qing-era Mongolia met with an eager welcome from European scholars
- Lattimore was an American... I see that it's mentioning London & Bonn, but I think this is too specific. "Western" scholars perhaps?
- Changed.
- Lattimore was an American... I see that it's mentioning London & Bonn, but I think this is too specific. "Western" scholars perhaps?
- Natsagdorj was also an important figure in Mongolian literature, becoming the chairman of the Mongolian Writers' Committee, in which capacity he strengthened the writers' union and encouraged the exploration of new genres.
- Was he really "important"? GTranslate comes up with "he was a good writer" which is a little different from "important." Even if the article said he was important, I don't think this is a strong enough source to carry such a powerful claim. I'm also skeptical of the translation as the "expansion of genres" - do you know Mongolian? My suspicion is that something is being lost in translation here.
- Removed the "important"; the "expansion of genres", as clarified by the following quote, refers to the depiction of the lives and work of historical figures from an artistic, not ideological, viewpoint.
- Can you include that more explicitly in the article? That really helps, I think the prose should just say so outright.
- Removed the "important"; the "expansion of genres", as clarified by the following quote, refers to the depiction of the lives and work of historical figures from an artistic, not ideological, viewpoint.
- Was he really "important"? GTranslate comes up with "he was a good writer" which is a little different from "important." Even if the article said he was important, I don't think this is a strong enough source to carry such a powerful claim. I'm also skeptical of the translation as the "expansion of genres" - do you know Mongolian? My suspicion is that something is being lost in translation here.
- Natsagdorj was also influential in the cultural sphere, writing plays, stories, and screenplays for a general audience.
- He even authored theatrical plays and screenplays, like Polo's Adventure, Khongorzul and Govi's Epic.
- I don't have access to the Schwarz 1974 source, but does that back these statements up? The web source merely says "He has written several screenplays such as..." without any indication of how influential they were. Also, is "screenplays" really accurate? I don't know any Mongolian and am just trusting Google Translate, but that strikes me as doubtful. Was he really writing screenplays? If so, were films produced based on them (a la Queen Mandukhai the Wise mentioned earlier)? Screenplays that sit around unproduced are a little less impressive an achievement, lots of people do that. My suspicion is that it's at least possible is a word with multiple valid translations and in-context it really meant "[play] script".
- I don't really understand the screenplays thing. Even if they weren't made into films, are they not still screenplays? Could you please explain?
- If he wrote screenplays, it's fine. But checking the Schwarz source now (I found it), it only says "author of several plays and articles on literature", as well as writing short stories. I'm just worried that Google Translate messed up. Also, I think GTranslate is definitely wrong on "Polo's Adventure"... if you look at the original, there's something called “Марко Пологийн адал явдал” in the previous list of books which translates as "The Adventures of Marco Polo". I think his screenplays (?) are just “Хонгорзул” (=Thistle = Khongorzul) and “Говийн тууль” (=Gobi's epic = Govi's Adventure).
- I don't really understand the screenplays thing. Even if they weren't made into films, are they not still screenplays? Could you please explain?
- I don't have access to the Schwarz 1974 source, but does that back these statements up? The web source merely says "He has written several screenplays such as..." without any indication of how influential they were. Also, is "screenplays" really accurate? I don't know any Mongolian and am just trusting Google Translate, but that strikes me as doubtful. Was he really writing screenplays? If so, were films produced based on them (a la Queen Mandukhai the Wise mentioned earlier)? Screenplays that sit around unproduced are a little less impressive an achievement, lots of people do that. My suspicion is that it's at least possible is a word with multiple valid translations and in-context it really meant "[play] script".
- which offered original arguments contrary to the prevailing theories
- This is rather mysterious - what arguments? What prevailing theories? Was this just the same thing as the 1960s deal where he spoke positively of Genghis and the state was still afraid of annoying the USSR? Or was he going off the grid and making totally new arguments?
- I don't know—the source doesn't say. Would it be better to cut it?
- I think we can keep "original arguments" but it's probably better to cut "prevailing theories" unless we know what theories they were, yeah.
- I don't know—the source doesn't say. Would it be better to cut it?
- This is rather mysterious - what arguments? What prevailing theories? Was this just the same thing as the 1960s deal where he spoke positively of Genghis and the state was still afraid of annoying the USSR? Or was he going off the grid and making totally new arguments?
- Natsagdorj, who had one daughter, N. Ariungua, died in 2001.
- Break this sentence up, him having a daughter has nothing to do with his death. Also, did he have a wife? Maybe something like "Natsagdorj died in 2001. He was survived by his daughter, N. Ariungua." (presuming she didn't pre-decease him, which it doesn't sound like it from Ishdorj's speech.)
- Done.
- Break this sentence up, him having a daughter has nothing to do with his death. Also, did he have a wife? Maybe something like "Natsagdorj died in 2001. He was survived by his daughter, N. Ariungua." (presuming she didn't pre-decease him, which it doesn't sound like it from Ishdorj's speech.)
The sole image in the article appears to be appropriately tagged. It's too bad we don't have better information on the date since if he's truly "very young" in it, it'll eventually be in the public domain (grumble grumble URAA Restoration Date nonsense whining goes here). SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Also, one quick other one:
- Shagdarjavyn Natsagdorj was born in 1918 in Amgalanbaatar, near the Mongolian capital of Ulaanbaatar.
- Googling for "Амгаланбаатар" turns up a whole lot of nothing; people, but practically nothing on a place, with the closest being the not-very-reliable-sounding "Tourist Info Center" [1] which does not bother to give the place a location and mostly calls it Maimaa and makes it sound like a historical location (and I'm not even sure that it was meant as a synonym for the location). Nothing on Google Maps either. Are we certain this is a real-but-extremely-obscure place, and not just a typo? Or given all the people named Амгаланбаатар cropping up in Google, that GTranslate hiccuped, and the original sense was "he was born to a father named Амгаланбаатар, and was born in the Capital Region?" SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mongolia is a country with poor coverage on the internet, which has undergone massive political, social, and economic change over the past century. It is perfectly plausible that if Амгаланбаатар existed, it was renamed, absorbed by a larger urban centre, abandoned entirely, or possibly all three. As the Mongolian seems clear, I am reluctant to hypothesize otherwise.
- I agree with you now - the "Biographical Sketches" in Schwarz 1974 says he indeed was born in Amgalanbaatar. (It is strange that this location seems to have dropped off the map - I suspect you're probably right that it's since been renamed.)
- Mongolia is a country with poor coverage on the internet, which has undergone massive political, social, and economic change over the past century. It is perfectly plausible that if Амгаланбаатар existed, it was renamed, absorbed by a larger urban centre, abandoned entirely, or possibly all three. As the Mongolian seems clear, I am reluctant to hypothesize otherwise.
- Googling for "Амгаланбаатар" turns up a whole lot of nothing; people, but practically nothing on a place, with the closest being the not-very-reliable-sounding "Tourist Info Center" [1] which does not bother to give the place a location and mostly calls it Maimaa and makes it sound like a historical location (and I'm not even sure that it was meant as a synonym for the location). Nothing on Google Maps either. Are we certain this is a real-but-extremely-obscure place, and not just a typo? Or given all the people named Амгаланбаатар cropping up in Google, that GTranslate hiccuped, and the original sense was "he was born to a father named Амгаланбаатар, and was born in the Capital Region?" SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments SnowFire; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Just two or three quick issues left. But yeah, all the other GA criteria are fine as expected, unless the recent article move counts against stability! But not really. Neutral, citation style is fine, not a copyvio, not close paraphrasing except when the source is thin so there's nothing else to do but repeat it, etc. SnowFire (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)