Talk:British Raj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee British Raj was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon British Raj is within the scope of WikiProject Burma (Myanmar), a project to improve all Burma related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Burmese-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Official flag[edit]

A question: if the official state flag of the British Raj was the Union Jack and it was this flag that was flown across the subcontinent at the time, why is the Star of India (flag) in the infobox as the flag of the British Raj? Particularly since the sources I've seen say it was an "unofficial" or "semi-official" flag used to "represent India in international events?"Aumnamahashiva (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Raj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: The article fails criteria 5 (quick fail criteria 4) as there are more than one disputes, including the name itself. Given that, it's not the right time to evaluate under the good article criteria. Therefore I'm failing it at this time and invite a renomination when the disputes settle down and the article meets WP:GACR. —SpacemanSpiff 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Raj/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 23:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

  1. I will be reviewing this article in the coming week. - Lemurbaby (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lemurbaby: thank you, any updates? Jaguar 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry this is taking so long. I promise to get it done this week. - Lemurbaby (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, just wanted to check in! No rush. Jaguar 14:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for working to move this article toward GA. It's a very important article and will hopefully reach FA before long. That said, it's going to need significant work before it can pass GA. I'll list the key points to work on below, and can give you until October 1 to get them done before revisiting the changes (I'll be away for five weeks after that). Alternatively, we can simply withdraw the GA nomination at this point, and then once the changes are done you can renominate and ping me, and I'll happily review it again so you won't have to wait for months before it gets a second review. - Lemurbaby (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style, formatting and references

  • Please add US public domain tags to all photos
  • The Notes section needs to be thoroughly edited. Right now it contains a mix of full citations, shortened citations, and explanatory notes. I would recommend using Notes for explanatory notes, References for shortened book citations and full journal/website/other citations, and Bibliography for full book citations. Alternatively, you could combine the content of the proposed notes and references sections under the Notes section and have the full book citations under the References section.
  • The Harvard SFN format is inconsistently used. Many references are not put in a template, which contributes to the inconsistencies in style and formatting of references.
  • There are also many instances where there is no linkage between the shortened footnote and the full reference.
  • Centering the photographs at the top of each section creates white space that breaks up the text and negatively affects readability. I'd recommend shifting the images to the left or right and splitting them so no more than three (preferably two) are set side by side at a time.
  • The list of viceroys should be moved to its own article
  • Per MOS, incomplete sentences should not end in periods. Please fix in image captions, the list of viceroys and other tables as needed.

Content and organization

  • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this size it should be four paragraphs and needs to summarize all the key points of the article.
  • This article omits several key components that would normally be included in an article on a former country, or has them mixed into other sections in an inconsistent way. Specifically it should at minimum include separate sections on Geography, History, and Political Subdivisions of that state. I would also expect to see a section describing its Economy (including foreign and domestic trade, state of industry/agriculture/service sectors and level of economic development), Governance (including overall structure and Foreign Relations, Security), Public Services (education, health, justice system etc) and Society (castes, religions, gender/age relations, predominant/influential philosophies, inequality etc). More details on Former Countries articles are available here. You could make good progress toward working these pieces into the article simply by shifting around existing content.
  • There are lots of details here that could potentially be moved to History of the British Raj and only paraphrased in this article, in order to leave room to adequately develop some of the areas in the point above.
I'll stop here. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. If you complete the points above, I'll pick up with a second round of reviewing to go deeper into content and organization. - Lemurbaby (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Lemurbaby: Thank you for you comments! I'd like to proceed with addressing them as I have some free time tomorrow. I think some of it should be easy to address whereas some others would require more time, but I reckon I could get this done within a week. Jaguar 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review status[edit]

Abandoned? timed out? What's the situation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the review can be closed as a fail now, I'm afraid I don't have the resources or books to find out the required information. I'll get there some day. Jaguar 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
All right... It would be wonderful to see this pass if you do find time to work on the above points. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)