Talk:Late Shang/GA1

GA Review

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Kanguole (talk · contribs) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been seeing you put a ton into this, I figured I'm familiar enough with things to give at least some decent feedback. Will try to get cracking before the week is out. (and I haven't forgotten about the GAN you're reviewing, don't worry) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, it looks like you were planning to take another pass at this review? -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Just from first readthrough.

• I think it'd be good to briefly touch on the traditional narratives in the very initial section of the body and how the discovery of Yinxu confirmed the Shang Dynasty as a historic polity, against the Doubting Antiquity School. Having to wait till the end of the article might end up confusing readers.
  • Good point. I'll try restructuring that.
• Likewise, I think it'd be good in Precursors to talk about how the Erligang and Xiaoshuangqiao-Huanbei antecedents are sometimes identified with the Early/Middle Shang (esp. in Chinese publications) and how this is disputed. I think it's important to give the reader some context here, in case they do not have prior knowledge of the Shang dynasty or ancient Chinese history at all.
  • I have mentioned Early/Middle Shang.
• Additionally, we're kind of lacking any description of the history of archaeology and excavation outside the immediate vicinity of Yinxu. I think this is a problem in some of the 90s-era sourcing, which relies on archaeology done before mainland sites were as accessible to western researchers. Maybe we can squeeze a little more out of Campbell to fill in some gaps in Keightley and Bagley.
  • Campbell (2014) presents the results of excavation elsewhere, and this is covered in the Geography section, but I don't think he says much about the history of the archaeology there, except to say it's getting better.
• This might be a little more radical, but I think it might make things a lot more comprehensible if you incorporated the "Relation to traditional accounts" in with Discovery to create a Historiography section, to avoid having to restate the same concepts.
  • My current thinking is to have some introductory material, but leave the rest till the end after everything has been presented.
• Per MOS:IMAGELOC, you only really want left-aligned images if it is a portrait of someone facing right. You got a fair bit of sandwiching issues at some points; either use a multiple image template for similar images, or make some cuts.
  • Done.
• There's a lot of niche detail here that's really good, but I think detracts from the article's focus as an archaeological culture — especially without the context of how this may be different from the Zhou or other periods of the Shang. Extended discussion of the Shang timekeeping system should really be split off into a Society and culture of the Shang dynasty or something of that sort (a la the similar article on the Han). The Religion section is a lot better, although I think the Powers subsection be shortened to an introductory paragraph summarizing Shang religion as a whole, since it isn't as relevant to the archaeology of Anyang Period religion (which is much more focused on burials, divination remains, etc..)
  • I don't think the article should be focussed just on material discoveries. A theme running through the literature is that we have these two sources of information: the material culture and what they wrote on those bones (which of course were also excavated). The latter gives us insight into how they thought, what they believed and what was important to them (or at least the king), and all of that is a vital part of the picture.
  • I've added a brief Legacy section discussing the relationship with the Western Zhou.
• I think it'd be extremely helpful to expand a bit on the level of Late Shang territorial control, the differences between its core area, its extended territory, and its area of cultural influence, and also possibly give some indication of the extent of these on the map.
  • I don't think there is sourcing to define a territory, and it was probably a very complex network anyway. All we can do is talk about the material finds in various places, as the Geography section tries to do.
• In contrast, I think we can do with expanding Society, especially as it relates to trade and governance. I do very much like how you contextualize stuff with the archaeological finds and theories; keep this energy up throughout!
  • We don't know much more about governance, and Campbell laments the lack of study of the economy until recently.
• I understand the intense focus on Yin (they didn't call it the Great Settlement Shang for nothing) but parts of the later article feel a bit Anyangcentric to me. I don't think we need stuff like the climate statistics for modern Anyang.
  • I've dropped the Anyang climate figure. To a large extent the Anyang-centrism reflects the focus of the archaeological work. Even away from Anyang the main interest has been in elite tombs, with Guandimiao as an exception.
• "Climate and agriculture" is kind of a weird combo here, esp. cause these are both fairly well-covered. Maybe we can put Climate in as a subsection of Geography, while merge Agriculture with the (somewhat too specifically-named) Workshops to create an "Economy and trade" section?
  • I started out on a farm, so the combination doesn't seem so weird to me. And most of these people were engaged in agriculture. I'll think about it.
  • I've re-arranged this and an Economy section, with a short Trade subsection.
• Make sure to capitalize your captions
  • Done.

• All of this has been resolved, so I'll do another prose and source go-through

Prose

• Lede is good.
• Discovery section also good now.
• Writing also solid.
• Chronology solid.
• Warfare good.
• Religion good.
• Society good.
• Economy good.
• Legacy and Relation to Traditional Accounts good; though you could get away with making the latter a subsection of the former.

Overall very solid prose, satisfying Criterion 1.

Verifiable

Source list is well put together and very extensive. I did a random spot check of some sources I had access to.

Bagley 1999:

• 13: Checks out.
• 24: Yep.
• 25a and 25b: Yep.
• 145: Yep.
• 326: Yep.
• 394: Yep.

Keightley 1978:

• 65: Yep.
• 129: Yep.
• 383: Yep.

Keightley 1999:

• 9: Yep.
• 104: Yep.
• 110: Yep.
• 186: Yep.
• 206: Yep.
• 271: Yep.

Not noticing any source discrepancies.

Other

This seems to be a fairly accurate overview of current scholarship on the matter, satisfying C.3 and 4. It's stable, and has a relatively high number of pictures, satisfying 5. (Good job on the alt text).

Status query

Generalissima, Kanguole, where does this review stand? Is there going to be another pass soon? The review has been open for three and a half months now. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Are you coming back to this, or should I put it back in the queue? Kanguole 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Kanguole: Apologies for the delay. I looked through and everything seems good to go! Great work on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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.