Jump to content

Talk:Third Anglo-Maratha War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Zuggernaut (talk | contribs)
5,018 edits
→‎EIC troops, numbers, label: The distinction made was European v. Indian only on occassion
Line 35: Line 35:


EIC troops numbered about 150,000 for our time period of interest per the link provided in the GA review ([[Company rule in India#Army and civil service]]). Also, they are almost universally referred to as British in literature, even though they were of Indian nationality hired by EIC. Some times, particularly when giving casualties/number of dead, a distinction is made by several authors in stating that x number of dead were European, rest were Indian. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
EIC troops numbered about 150,000 for our time period of interest per the link provided in the GA review ([[Company rule in India#Army and civil service]]). Also, they are almost universally referred to as British in literature, even though they were of Indian nationality hired by EIC. Some times, particularly when giving casualties/number of dead, a distinction is made by several authors in stating that x number of dead were European, rest were Indian. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

:This is a hard one they were employed by the EIC a British trading company and most accounts use British to describe them even when about 80%+ were Indians. We could use company troops which is accurate and gets around the problem of race.--[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:47, 25 September 2010

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third Anglo-Maratha War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Kommentare

  • The lede claims It began with an invasion of Maratha territory by 120,000 British troops,[1] I can see its referenced but it can not be accurate the British Army was not involved just the EIC and they did not have anywhere near this amount of British troops. Does it include Indians if so it should be changed to reflect that. Also no where else in the article do the British/EIC troop numbers add up to anywhere near 120,000. The Company rule in India#Army and civil service which is well referenced suggests in 1796 there was a grand total, British and Indian troops of only 70,000
That data is from a different period. For our period of interest, there were 150,000 British troops in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 335 claims there were only 24,5000 British troops in India in 1806. I have taken away the British and left the number in. Most of these were not British but locally recruited. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources refer to the troops as British, irrespective of their national origin. The only time they are differentiated by nationality is when reporting deaths (eg. Of the 86 British casualties, 14 were European and the rest Indian or something similar). Zuggernaut (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its hard reading can I suggest another copy edit to try and improve
Sure; I will do it on the weekend once things settle down on the article again. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Erledigt Please notify me if you think any sections need more work. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of clarification and citation needed tags
Most have been removed. I am working on the rest. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Erledigt I have not removed two tags. The first one is regarding the explanation for Holkar's inability to rise again. The heavy losses he suffered have been provided. I've not removed the tag yet. It can be removed after we agree that the explanation is sufficient. The other tag is about reinforcements the source indicates only "Lieutenant Colonel Rahan on 29 November, Major Pittman on 5 December, Colonel Doveton on 12 December" were called upon. Same reasoning for leaving the tag as it is. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-worded both passages and took the liberty of removing the tags but if you are still not satisfied please advise. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info box has a number of persons in the Belligerents side Amir Khan for example is this correct was he not the ruler I don't suppose he declared war on the EIC by himself
 Erledigt Removed Amir Khan from infobox. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some of the Indian commanders in brackets ?
 Erledigt The Peshwa Baji Rao II never led on a battlefield and I wasn't sure if the situation was the same for the rest. I've removed brackets. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article is about the Third Anglo-Maratha War the first section The Marathas and the British is way over the top it should be a short summary of the two earlier conflicts
 Erledigt I've cut down on this section and provided only summarized key points. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need the tables with details of the Maratha Emperors and Prime Ministers from 1614 they have nothing to do with the war
I have replaced this with the {{Colonial India}} navbox as it is more directly relevant. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The The Marath Empire section is very small can it be incorporated in the section above
 Erledigt Merged the section with the preceding section. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore are off focus and have little if anything to do with the war
 Erledigt Removed these and the tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Prelude section the image gets in the way of the bullet points which are in the middle of the text, can they be got rid of and changed into prose
 Erledigt I've removed the bullets and converted it to prose. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the two tables can they be changed into prose or form a order of battle article with a link

: Erledigt Zuggernaut (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Still needs looking at --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would re-introducting the tables with modification per pages 99-100 from this reference serve the purpose? United Service Institution of India (1901), Journal of the United Service Institution of India, vol. 30, retrieved September 26, 2010 Zuggernaut (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the expanded tables back with a verifiable source. Please let us know if they meet the requirements. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tables should be turned into prose at the moment they do not enhance the presentation of the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the table to prose.
  • Which could also include the table in the commencement section
 Erledigt Zuggernaut (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't like the table Subjugation of the Maratha powers by the British can this be turned into prose
 Erledigt I've converted this to prose. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit in the Flight of the Peshwa section all seems out of order On 3 June 1818 Baji Rao surrendered to the British and negotiated the sum of eight lakhs as annual maintenance.[65] Baji Rao obtained promises from the British in favor of the Jagirdars, his family, the Brahmins, and religious institutions.[65] The Peshwa was sent to Bithur near Kanpur.[66] By 10 April 1818, General Smith's forces had taken the forts of Sinhagad and Purandar.[67] Mountstuart Elphinstone mentions the capture of Sinhagadh in his diary entry for 13 February 1818: "The
 ErledigtI have rearranged that paragraph in chronological order to eliminate the confusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map File:Malwa India 1823.png has been taken from this web site which is copy righted http://www.davidrumsey.com/ I don't think the Licensing hold out have you permission from the owner to use the map
  • In the bibliography some books need publishing locations
 Erledigt --Diannaa (Talk) 15:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burton, R. G (2002), The Tiger Hunters, Mittal Publications needs an ISBN and location
I was unable to locate an ISBN for a 2002 edition by Mittal. Should we put in the info on the original 1936 edition? --Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem best --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Erledigt I've updated that reference to point to the original 1930s publication but I have not been able to verify if the same statement occurs in there. I have no particular reason to believe that it won't be in that publication. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also why are some sections highlighted Volume 17 of Madhya Pradesh District Gazetteers, Madhya Pradesh (India) for example
The citation template highlights the contents of the "volume" field. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some linked to Google books this one for example only shows us the book not content [1]
I have provided a link to the front cover in most cases. Some of the older 19th century books have a blank first page and give the impression that there's no content in it until you scroll down. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the peer review, I specifically pointed out a lack of background leading up to the war. I agree that what Zuggernaut added is a bit long, and can probably summarize less 18th century Indian history. However, summarizing the first two Anglo-Maratha wars is insufficient, since the conflicts (political and military) within the confederacy are relevant; this requires context about the rise of the Marathas to explain. The Anglo-Maratha relationship was also influenced by their participation, usually as allies, in other 18th century conflicts like the Anglo-Mysore Wars. Magic♪piano 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re the Rumsey image: just because the David Rumsey Map Collection (or the UK National Portrait Gallery, to cite an example Wikimedia has actually had legal wranglings with on a similar contention) claims copyright, doesn't mean it has it. If the image was in fact published in 1823, it is public domain in the US, regardless of the work David Rumsey did to produce a high-quality version of it (US copyright case law does not recognize "sweat of the brow" efforts to make slavish copies of a work as a reason to grant copyright). The license currently attached to File:Malwa India 1823.png is incorrect; it should have a {{PD-Art}} license, since the act of drawing a single existing boundary line in a different color is probably not sufficiently creative to warrant anything more. Magic♪piano 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to fix all of the points brought up in the allotted time. I will follow the instructions outlined by Jim over the next week to provide updates. In the meantime, I've moved the language issue brought up by User:Ucucha to the talk page. Please provide feedback at the talk page of the article. [2] Zuggernaut (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion requested

I have asked for a second opinion on the tables in the Maratha planning section I still believe they should be turned into prose but another reviews opinions may be benificial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my opinion is that it would be best to convert to prose. Certainly that is what I've been told to do on a few of my GAs. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American English v. Other varieties

I have seen this issue come up in at least one other article on Wikipedia India related articles. I would prefer to keep the current American English despite this post from User:Ucucha [3]. Reasons:

  • The article is fairly evolved and currently undergoing a GA review
  • As far as I know, most Indian users may prefer American English. I know for a fact that most Indian users have their browsers and word processing tools set to American English when it comes to spell check and other preferences. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the MoS says about an evolved/developed article: Wikipedia:TIES#Retaining_the_existing_variety.
I am not aware of any dictionary specifically made for "Indian English", at least not from any reputed publishing house. Indian English in itself may have numerous varieties depending on the state you are in. For Maharashtra, the state of relevance in this article, according to the Wikipedia article you point to, this would be "Minglish". This falls under WP:OR. Many or mostSome of the sources used in that article will not pass reliable sources test but there is a lot of original research in that article. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as a minor point but I am willing to change to British English if the majority feel so. My preference is American English. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go with American English, all the dates will have to be changed as they use the British style (I changed them under the assumption that an article about India would use British English). I favour British English for the article as the British have strong national ties to India. See Wikipedia:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there's a template for Indian English - {{Indian English}} so I think it makes sense to switch to that version since this article had a lot of India-specific terminology like "lakh" for 100,000, Appa Saheb, Peshwa, etc and also because are similarities in the spellings in British and Indian English. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EIC troops, numbers, label

EIC troops numbered about 150,000 for our time period of interest per the link provided in the GA review (Company rule in India#Army and civil service). Also, they are almost universally referred to as British in literature, even though they were of Indian nationality hired by EIC. Some times, particularly when giving casualties/number of dead, a distinction is made by several authors in stating that x number of dead were European, rest were Indian. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard one they were employed by the EIC a British trading company and most accounts use British to describe them even when about 80%+ were Indians. We could use company troops which is accurate and gets around the problem of race.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Anglo-Maratha_War&oldid=386918876"