Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British Empire

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008 [1].

British Empire

edit

Nominator: User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk)

A lot of work has gone into the article to ensure that it is comprehensive in its coverage, that it is fully referenced, and that it adheres to the MOS. A peer review by User:Finetooth helped a great deal there. If there are any outstanding items preventing it from reaching FA status, I stand ready to address them ASAP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not experienced with these reviews, but I'll just start by linking to previous reviews I found:
Hope to do more later. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm sorry, but I have a hard time supporting this nomination with the article lacking any chronological map, where the distribution of the Empire is shown over time. I mean something like this. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fail to see why this should hold the article from reaching FA status. Firstly, animated images are rather distracting for the reader, though that just might be me. Secondly, the anachronous map at the top (the territories that were at one time or another part of the BE), combined with the text, which goes into considerable detail on when most colonies joined/left the empire, combined with the link to Evolution of the British Empire (where such a map exists, and is more appropriate) are all enough for the curious reader to dig more into details. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • I'm still deciding whether to support or oppose. I began by looking at the references. The following authors of the listed references have their own Wikipedia articles and ought to be wikilinked: Alan Taylor, Margaret Thatcher, Piers Brendon, Saul David, Niall Ferguson, Martin Gilbert, Laurence James, Jon Latimer, Thomas Babington Macaulay. Macaulay's work has its own article, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. The date of first publication of Macaulay's history ought to be provided; it is given as 1848 in our article. The author who is listed as T. O. Lloyd might be better spelled out as Trevor Owen Lloyd, since Lloyd is a common surname.
  • There is a template {{Empires}} that lists out all the empires in Wikipedia. In the section 'Modern Empires' I did not find any featured articles at all. I noticed that Dutch Empire had an unsuccessful bid for FA status. Going back to Ancient Empires, I see that Byzantine Empire is a featured article. I've been looking that over, trying to see how it compares to British Empire in thoroughness of coverage.
  • There has been discussion (above) of whether the extent of the British Empire should have an animated gif file. I would vote No because animating the worldwide picture of the B.E. is too confusing. In one of the sub-articles, there is an animated gif for the colonies in North America which, while not super-convincing, is worthwhile if you have the patience to wait several minutes for it to cycle all the way through.
  • British overseas territories is the actual name of our article, and that's how the capitalization should go. (There is a UK government reference in the linked article which backs this up).
  • Why do we have the unfamiliar word 'anachronous' used in the caption of the prominent map at the top of the page? This is not Word-A-Day. Why not replace it with 'Land areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire', or some such. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments to come. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tackled the above to the best of my knowledge (note the three questions on the incomplete ones). Please let me know what I should do or if there is anything else needed to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Treaty of Paris by Benjamin West 1783.jpg, it looks like the source was Harper's Magazine, which is reliable for the color representation. However, to complete the Information template, please see the Library of Congress description here, which, unfortunately, is black and white. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I amended File:British Empire 1897.jpg and File:Victoria Disraeli cartoon.jpg. If you are not the uploader and you are not sure where it came from, you can find the closest equivalent to the image from a reliable source and link on the source line. The 1897 map has quite a few hits on Google images, but the Cambridge Library is an excellence source. I would not claim I found it on Bob's Ye Olde Maps Website. The Punch cartoon is a little more difficult, but I found the best copy on Punch's own website. I'm going to ask for advice on the Newsweek image. I recently posted a Newsweek cover in an article I wrote, including a bangup rationale for its being there, and I was advised to take it down. The cover is also high resolution. I decreased the pixel size, but my image editing software is too limited on this computer. Non-free images should be low resolution. I'll revisit this when I know more. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek image has been removed from the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All images appear fine. Sorry for not returning sooner, and thank you for being understanding and flexible with the Newsweek image. Having written a few articles myself, I understand how frustrating it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - I've read the article, but am not 100% ready to support yet - I want to give it another read though tonight. However, I did notice that the article is (please correct me if I'm wrong) missing any mention of the Egyptian or Iraqi independence granted in the 1930s. A sentence or two will do, but I think its quite important in relation to the Suez Crisis especially to mention the former at least.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response You are not wrong. I'll add mention of those later today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [16] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some other comments below as I read through, although I do think this is a very good article.
  • "The British Empire was the set of . . ." - is the assumption that the British Empire is in the past? The article's introduction indicates that the empire is indisputibly a thing of the past which is a viewpoint I can understand, but not one that I think conforms to the idea of a balanced view: Britain retains some colonies after all. On what basis did you choose to use the past tense in the introduction?
  • On a related note, the "was the set of" might be better written (and to my mind better encompass the non-tangible aspects of the empire: culture, politics, religion etc.) as "was comprised of the"
  • "in the 17th century. It was the largest empire in history" - since the empire was extemely fluid in size over time, perhaps "in the 17th century. At its height it was the largest empire in history" might be better.
  • I felt there were some, mainly grammatical problems with the lead and I have copyedited it a little. I think this helps introduce the article a little more clearly, although if you disagree please change it back.
  • You need to decide whether you are going to capitalise Empire or not. You seem to have capitalised British Empire, but not empire when it is alone. My instinct is to always capitalise Empire when referring to a specific one as I think it is a proper noun, just like any other place name however I could be wrong. Whatever you do however, be consistent.
  • Make sure all citations come after punctuation.
  • I saw a few more of these lurking around, keep you eye out for them.
  • "the percentage of the population comprising blacks" - I have to say, that I have never liked the term "blacks" to describe people in population terms. Not only can it be perceived as a little demeaning, but it is also a little unhelpful as its meaning has changed quite dramatically in historical usage over time. Perhaps just say "black people" or "of African descent" instead, but at least link it to the relevant article.
  • "(the majority in the south)" Either explain this a little more clearly ("Southern Colonies" etc.) or give a piped link to Southern United States which explains the South as a regional concept.
  • "At the concluding peace Treaty of Utrecht," - no need for the word "peace"
  • I realise the article is crammed as it is, but there should be some mention in the section on the 19th century of Ireland, the famine there and the debates over Home Rule, which were a major issue in late 19th century politics. It doesn't need to be long, but it is quite important.
I will continue tomorrow. I know I have brought up a lot, but I don't think it will be to difficult to deal with these and I have to say that I am ver impressed with the article so far, excellent job on a complicated and controversial topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - thanks for your feedback Jackyd101. I agree with your points, save for the first one - see the last sentence of the End of Empire section! My reading has always suggested that Hong Kong/1997 is traditionally seen as the end of the empire. Certainly, although we sometimes get the odd anon IP claiming it is still in existence, I have never seen a reliable source make this claim. (The Government certainly would not refer to a British Empire!) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all done [17]. I'll look at adding the 19th C Ireland stuff. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland: [18] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll finish my review this morning with additional comments appended below. The first point was a discussion point rather than something I want to see changed immediately: I wanted to see the process that led you to introduce the article in this manner and I think you've explained that sufficiently.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather than deal with the issue, however, Britain" - this sounds like your suggesting that Britain ducked responsibility on the issue (and you wouldn't be wrong), but with something like this you should either say it and source it or keep it more neutral. I suggest "Rather than address the issue directly, Britain" as an alternative.
  • "successful in its objective of recapturing the Suez Canal"" - are the extra quote marks here signifying anything?
And that is that, a throughly interesting and enjoyable article which I am happy to support. Very good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [19] and.... great! Thanks again for your input and suggestions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - done for Oz and Kiwi [20], using a page from an existing reference [21] and done for Newfy [22] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to FA criterion 1(a). This article is exceptionally well-written and engaging. Graham Colm Talk 13:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article is indeed well-written (1a); seems comprehensive & well-researched (1b); history seems stable (1e); follows all of the section 2-4 guidelines. Still, I'm not sure about factual accuracy or neutrality; I trust that this article will have much expertise editing here. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are still a couple of problems with the article and as mentioned above a chronological map showing the development and then decolonisation of the Empire would be far more informative than the several maps currently provided at different points in time. However The article is mostly well written and explains the major issues well remembering there are separate articles going into far more detail on most of the issues involved. It is well sourced and fits the required criteria / standard. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per britishwatcher.--Judo112 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a few things, perhaps with some more to follow.
    • The article uses three styles for the dash at the level of sentence punctuation. Only two of these (unspaced em dash and spaced en dash) are recommended at WP:Dash, or are at all standard anywhere. That should be fixed, for conformity with MOS. Choose one style, and use it consistently.
    • There are a couple of serial commas that appear unjustified in an article that generally avoids these. MOS (at Wikipedia:Mos#Serial_commas) recommends consistency, except "where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence". Beyond the usual greater clarity afforded by just about all serial commas, those underlined here do not "clarify the meaning":
      • the majority of whom were convicts, ex-convicts, or their descendants
      • Britain returned Guadeloupe, Martinique, Goree, French Guiana, and Réunion to France, and Java and Suriname to the Netherlands
    • Still in some way involving commas, the following are awkward or non-standard, and would be better if rewritten:
      • India's two independence movements, the Indian National Congress, and the Muslim League, had been campaigning [Irregular use of commas brings momentary uncertainty for the reader: are there three elements and an irregular third comma (two independence movements; the Indian National Congress; the Muslim League) or two elements and an irregular second comma (the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, both of which are independence movements)? The answer seems obvious to the authors, but for some readers it may not be. Solutions: omit the second comma; or replace the first and third commas with dashes.]
      • The granting of independence to Rhodesia and Vanuatu in 1980, and British Honduras in 1981 meant... [Omit the comma; or put a to before British Honduras and a comma after 1981. Otherwise the structure is uncertain (at least momentarily, which is still bad) and the punctuation non-standard.]
      • Decades, and in some cases, centuries, of British rule and emigration... [Too many commas, so too fragmented. Omit all three commas, or refashion like this: Decades or centuries of British rule and emigration....]
      • Several ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world can trace their origins to borders inherited by countries from the British Empire: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and within Africa where political boundaries did not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. [The elements in the list are not parallel in their grammar or logic: the A, the B, the C, and "within Africa...". It's a bit long and convoluted anyway. Try this: Borders imposed by British rule cause problems even today: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and confrontations in Africa where political boundaries do not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. (I'd want a serial comma before and confrontations, but that is not the article's chosen style!) An alternative: simply reword the original with this: ...the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several disputes in Africa where... (with no comma after confront, since your article's chosen style rules this out!). All of this analysis assumes that the matter of ethnicity or religions affects only Africa. That's the natural reading as things stand. But if that matter applies to all the cases (as I believe it does), then you want something like this: Borders imposed by British rule were insensitive to ethnicity and religion, causing problems that still persist: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several confrontations in Africa.]
      • The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton, and rice in the south and naval materiel were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,... [The meaning is uncertain. Let me try this: The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton and naval materiel (and rice in the south) were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Or this might be meant: The American colonies in the south, which provided tobacco, cotton, rice and naval materiel, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Or this: The American colonies, which provided naval materiel, and in the south tobacco, cotton and rice, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean,.... Is it one of these, or something else?]
    • Isn't the lead too long?
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: thanks for your comments! I think all your points have been addressed now:
  • Serial commas: done [23]
  • More commas: (Indian independence movements & Rhodesia/British Hond): done [24]
  • Decades and centuries commas: done but with a different way than proposed - I think it's OK? [25]
  • Conflicts and disputes: done [26]
  • Less financially successful American colonies: simplified [27]
  • Length of lead: the good article review said it was too short, so we lengthened it! [28] "The lead needs to be longer - four solid paragraphs would be about right for an article of this length" Personally I don't see any irrelevancies in it - what do you think could be removed? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about the dashes... on it now... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's done too now [29] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some trimming of the lead [30] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Red. I've just fixed a couple more dashes myself. Now, I am still concerned about this: Several ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world can trace their origins to borders inherited by countries from the British Empire: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and several disputes in Africa where political boundaries did not reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions. Do you intend the point about ethnicities and religions to apply only to Africa? That is the more natural way to read the sentence; but it might be read the other way, to apply to all of the ongoing conflicts and disputes around the world, and that meaning would seem to be right. Yes? It therefore needs reworking to say one thing or the other. In fact, I also don't like can trace their origins, since it is not the conflicts and disputes that trace their own origins! How is the present wording better than, say, the following? Borders imposed by former British rule often failed to respect regional ethnic or religious differences, with a legacy of problems that remain to this day: the Guatemalan claim to Belize, the Kashmir conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and confrontations in Africa.
The lead is more trim and efficient, now.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O, and note 47 has this form: "pp. 8, 30–4, 389–92". That pp. is good! Why do other references not also use this style, as opposed to this style in note 70: "p. 156–7"? The pp. is far more standard.
What's more, the style in note 70 differs from this in note 77: "p. 133–34". A consistent rule should be applied for the omission of digits in the second element.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've fixed the refs. Regarding your continuing concern, the source from which this whole paragraph was drawn refers to Africa on its own, and the Guatemalan claim to Belize is not a religious or ethnic claim. But I agree this needs reworking. I'll look at it in the morning... it's getting late here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? [31] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, Red. I've done some fixing myself, to bring a few details into conformity with WP:MOS, as required for featured articles. I'll watch for a little while, and I expect soon to support promotion.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: the opening sentence has "United Kingdom (UK)" - should the abbreviation that is then used later in the article be explained in this way, or is UK commonly enough understood? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once is just right. UK by itself is good after that. Finetooth (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire&oldid=1048939622"