Talk:Siege of Arrah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Please let me know about any edits that are required. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Will let you know shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Sorry for the delay. I'll put the comments within 2–3 days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I'll be unable to do any major editing of this article between 23 and 29 December but I'm available until then. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: No problem, take your time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I'm quite keen to get this done as I'm aware it is taking much longer to resolve this than the seven days that a Good Article review typically takes. If we can push it through in the next few days, I'm happy to work hard on it. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues

• Section 1;
  • I would like to see more context on why there was a mutiny by the soldiers.

 Done - More context added. The act that caused the actual outbreak of mutiny in Dinapore, however, was already included in the article (Lloyd's orders to the regiments to hand in their percussion caps).

• • headquarters of what was then -> headquarters of then
  • Shahabad District -> Shahabad district
  • had a population at the time which consisted largely of Bengal Native Infantry sepoys -> had a population largely consisted of Bengal Native Infantry sepoys
  • The dashes used between explaining or clarifying something must be an emdash i.e. "—" see WP:EMDASH

 Done - All sorted. These were minor changes.

More on the way...Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • was described as, described by who?

 Done

• • European population of Arrah expected the Native Infantry regiments to mutiny at any moment, why were the Europeans expecting a mutiny, some background regarding the mutiny is required.

 Done - Removed this specific sentence - the following two paragraphs describe the background and context already.

• • escorted by armed members of the European male population -> escorted male Europeans

 Not done This change would make the sentence incoherent

• • At the same meeting, discussion took place about the next steps that should be taken; this sentence is unnecessary unless the what were the steps discussed mentioned.

 Done changed the wording of the sentence

• • surrounding area -> surrounding areas

 Not done changed "area" to "district"

• • Richard Vicars Boyle (District Engineer with the East Indian Railway Company); change it into general prose type as you did for other officials.

 Done

• • two-storey, 50-by-50-foot (15 by 15 m) -> two-storied 50-by-50-foot (15 by 15 m)

 Not done "Two-storey" is the traditional use in British English

• • A comma (,) after "On 22 July"

 Done This was another very minor change

• Section 2.1;
  • Link Governor-General and Lord Canning separately and also mention Canning's full name as it is the first mention

 Done

• • Who was General Lloyd? What was his position?

 Done

• • 4pm -> 4:00 pm, per MOS:TIME. The space used is no breakable space. See WP:NBSP

 Done

• • Mention "Herwald Wake" by just "Wake" from second mention throughout the article. Per MOS:LASTNAME

 Done

• Section 2.2;
  • Mention Fenwick full name

 Done

• • 09:30? What is this am or pm? Previously you have used am/pm format, so to maintain consistency, do the same here per MOS:TIME

 Done

• • Abbrevaiate the units from second mention, for example on the first mention if it is 5 miles (8.0 km), from the second time keep it as 3 mi (4.8 km). Also keep the units up to at least one decimal point.

 Done

• • earned the Victoria Cross - Mangles, despite being wounded, use em dash

 Done

• Section 2.2;
  • magistrates (who were friends of the besieged party); change this into general prose

 Done

• • his role as Commissioner of Patna; "the Commissioner of Patna"

 Done

• • at about 4:00 pm; use nbsp in "4:00 pm"

 Done

• • I already said to change the "-" in "Victoria Cross - Mangles, despite being wounded" to "em dash" i.e. —
• Section 2.3;
  • Kunwar Singh's forces – including Kunwar Singh himself – in an; use em dashes

 Done

• • had heard about their approach and "We are all well."; this is a bit confusing; I am not able to catch the meaning; reword it a bit

 Done

• • reconnoitre the area – they found no sign; use em dash; also correct the spelling of reconnoitre; I think it is reconnoiter

 Done replaced with EM dash

 Not done "Reconnoitre" is the correct spelling in British English. "Reconnoiter" is the US English spelling.

• • ready to be primed – the charge was destroyed; change this into general sentence without dash

 Done

• Section 3;
  • Governor General? name?

 Done

• • Subadar -> Subedar

 Done

• • Position of Sir James Outram?

 Done

• • Link Maharaja College

 Done

• Images; No need of Mr in image captions of images, because this is not a honorary or military prefix

 Done

• Lead; I suggest you to expand it to at least two paras, but not more than four; mention something about Eyre's mission etc.

 Done

• • 27 July – 3 August 1857 -> 27 July 1857 – 3 August 1857, per MOS:DATERANGE

 Done

• The article has one disambiguation, please fix this.

 Done

• Copyvio detector shows just 9.9 percent violation, good.

Noted - These are all due to titles in the references

• External links are well.

Noted

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• All Complete - @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Please let me know if any further edits are required to meet the criteria. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)