Wikipedia:Peer review/Bengal famine of 1943/archive2

Bengal famine of 1943 edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article's page views seem to hover around 1,700 or 1,800 per day, with spikes into the area of 6,000. The sheer scale of the tragedy makes it a grim landmark in modern history. It has also become a paradigmatic case in the academic study of famines as a whole. Before I touched this article it was clearly in need of a lot of work. I think it is FA quality, but one could very conservatively say its scope, depth and detail are worthy of the topic... if you see any points or sections that seem incomplete or undeveloped, you might wanna skim this full-blown version from long ago.

Since this is a large article on a sensitive topic and with a contentious history, I might leave it here in PR for... maybe 2 months?

Thanks, Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this through a couple of times, I'm scratching my head at some of the objections raised at FAC. To me, it seems like a very solid and well-researched article. The one piece of advice I have would be get it through A-class review before going for FAC again, but that's just a suggestion. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:Thank you for your comments. The MILHIST A review refused to look at it, saying first it wasn't milhist and second it was too hard for them. No other A review seems relevant. I agree of course about that FAC. So this will sit here for maybe 6 or 7 more weeks, then go back to FAC. may I ping you then? Thanks for your feedback, feel free if you have other comments. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re the A-class review, it might be worth asking Ian or one of the other coords. For example, I got the go-ahead to nominate this article, a non-military resistance group. Feel free to ping me, although I'm really not familiar with the subject so limited in the help that I can provide. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few unrelated minor issues: "Harv error: link from CITEREFDyson_and_Maharatna1991 doesn't point to any citation." and Ó Gráda 2010 in the biblio doesn't point to any citation either. Likewise, you should link the author at the first mention, rather than the third. Also, if the article was trimmed down in the past could some of that material be spun off into new articles, such as Denial policies (Bengal famine)? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly: I'm traveling for maybe 8 or 9 days tomorrow. There are already two spin-off from this article. If you saw me mention in the previous FAC that Denial stuff had been trimmed, well, I restored it to the article after FAC. Ian and the milhist Coors are precisely the ones who kicked it out of the A review. Thanks for catching some broken links I will fix when I return. I don't want any more spin-off because the article makes less sense that way PLUS if anyone wants to read only the more gruesome bits after the famine started, all they need to do is click a link in the TOC. thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The small text in the infobox caption should be in normal font - WP:SMALLTEXT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ready for at least GA? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ready for FA. It always has been and still is. If I put it in GAN, would there be any benefit worth the three month wait for a review? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the case then it can go straight to FA. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Straight to FAC, not straight to FA. but thanks for your comments and attention. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gog the Mild edit

A big article, so I am only going to try and cover the more outstanding features. To start, I, personally, would be inclined to not pass it at FAC because:

It is too long. Including notes it is over twice the size at which WP:TOOBIG suggests "May need to be divided" and larger than the "Almost certainly should be divided" point.
It has too many notes. Nearly all of them should either be scrapped or included in the text.
I don't find the prose "features professional standards of writing". (I note from the FAC that SarahSV also had concerns about the prose although not to the extent that I do.)

Other points which would need work at FAC, or, preferably, before:

The article seems to try and cover a number of areas, each worthy of a hefty book, in too much detail. And at that sometimes leaves a reader feeling that some points are taken for granted. (Coming back to this after reading the last FAC I would use as an example the death rate discussion and table, per Nick-D. Eg, no percentages are provided for the pre-famine period, making comparison very difficult. It is assumed that a reader knows that death rates are per 1,000; if a reader doesn't then the numbers mean little.)
Without digging into the sources more than I wish to it is difficult to be certain about this, but I get the impression that some areas get undue focus and others little or none.
I looked at just one image, File:Bengal famine 1943 photo.jpg. It gives a publication date of "1943" and has no information on its publication history. Part of the reason given for it being in copyright in the US is "it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)". It has been taken from a website where it is captioned "This press photo appeared in American newspapers during December 1943". This gives me serious doubts as to where the "not published in the U.S. within 30 days" came from. I also do not consider the source website to be reliable, which leaves me with no compelling reason to believe that the child in the picture is dead, died in Bengal, died in 1943.

Niggles which make me worry about the whole article:

Pinnell. He should be referred to as just "Pinnell" after first mention. Trivial in itself, but this was flagged up at FAC a year ago and has not been corrected.
Leo Amery. On his first two mentions, in the same paragraph, he is given his full name and his full title. Again trivial, but again causing a worry about quality overall.
There is inadequate Wikilinking. (Eg jotedar is mentioned eight times and not linked.)

As it currently stands the article should not be resubmitted for FAC. It is not ready. IMO at least most of the issues above need resolving before it is ready. So long as the putative nominator is adamant, for example, that the notes should not be drastically reduced, then it will not become FAC ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you zeroed exactly in on one img that a Valued Editor added... That one img you looked at, Bengal famine 1943 photo.jpg, is one that was not there when it went to FAC. Some Valued Editor stuck it in later. I knew it was bad.. but didn't want to start an argument. Other imgs may not be as dodgy.

Sorry about that. I just thought that I would sample one, and you were on the receiving end of Sod's law.

If I may ask, where on earth do you see mention of "too many notes" in WP:WIAFA? I have not seen it mentioned there. If it is not in WIAFA, why does it fly? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me it fails "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" and "appropriate structure". But don't argue with me, we're not in a FAC and if you persuade me it makes no difference. I strongly doubt that you could persuade six random FAC reviewers to accept that level of notes regardless of whether it is explicitly forbidden. If you think they would then fix everything else and try your luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing? No. Not arguing. Was asking a question. If you think the prose sucks, I would be in your debt if you would CE. As for notes... I will look into it. But the topic is mondo controversial. Every i needs to be dotted every t needs to be crossed. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]