Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Arrah/archive1

< 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 [1].

Siege of Arrah

edit
Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Siege of Arrah, an event that occurred during the Indian Mutiny. It was an eight day long siege during which 68 men, a mix of civilians and soldiers, successfully defended a two-storey, 50 by 50 ft (15 by 15 m) building against a force, under the command of Kunwar Singh, of between 2,000 and 3,000 mutinying professional soldiers combined with an estimated 8,000 irregular combatants. This article has been copy-edited by the GOCE, and it has passed a GA review and an A-Class review from the Military History Wikiproject. I make no apologies for pushing this through because it's been a pleasure to develop this article - it made an excellent procrastination project while I was meant to be doing something else (and editing this article has led to me purchasing a very fine, 110-year-old copy of one of the books that is used as a source!). I'll be available to respond to this review over the coming weeks, and as my previous engagement with this shows (in the previous reviews) I usually respond within 24 hours. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks for your help with this article. I know that nested parentheses are usually not OK but in this specific case, 58 (Eyre's) Battery is that unit's proper name so that's why I went with it. It probably seems like I'm being awkward but what can I say - I'm a geek! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could perhaps replace the outer set of parentheses with dashes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I've followed your suggestion and replaced the parentheses. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of footnotes use "pp." but should use "p."
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN51 should use endash
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether newspaper citations end in a period
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBooks links don't need accessdates and should be trimmed to ID/page
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria: - I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - this article looks quite good to me, only a few nitpicks:
    • Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase / plagiarism [2] (no action req'd)
    • The last paragraph of the "First relief attempt" section (starting "During the evening of 29 July the besieged") seems a little out of sequence chronologically, I wonder if it would work better if it and parts of the paragraph above it were swapped around?
    • Perhaps wikilink Lucknow?
    • Generally no need to include "access dates" for documents that don't change such as books so I'd suggest removing it where you have included it in the reference section (please see the {{cite book}} template documentation here)
    • Otherwise a made a few minor (hopefully helpful) MOS tweaks [3]. Anotherclown (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Thanks @Anotherclown: - I believe I have rectified things. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look fine to me. Adding my support now for promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks for your time! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Thanks for writing such an enjoyable article on a topic which I read many moons ago while in school. My only quibble is that the Present day section be merged with the Aftermath. —Vensatry (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Vensatry: - I've made the change you suggested. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this is a very stable, well-written, and well-sourced article on an exciting historical topic, if not a rather crucial one for British and Indian history. Your narrative style is also a pleasure to read. Bravo! My only suggestion is to directly attribute the quote in the last sentence of the "aftermath" section to the author Abhay Kumar. Generally speaking quotations should always be attributed in the text of the article, to avoid any confusion as to who is being quoted. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PericlesofAthens: I've made that change, thanks for your time! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: An image review took place during the MilHist A-Class review. I am not sure if this is sufficient, however, and I've already added a note at WT:FAC. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the images have not changed, that would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the review took place, I have removed one image and moved another from the article's body to the Infobox. No other changes to the images have taken place. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is your first FAC. In that case, I think all we are waiting for is a spot-check of sources. My only other queries:
  • This article concentrates mainly on the besieged. Is there anything on the besiegers?
  • Are there any modern works which give an opinion on the siege? Have views changed from the time of Trevelyan? For instance, I find it interesting that the surviving building is now a museum to Kunwar Singh, albeit in name only. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Other than the most basic details that I have already added to the article and the information about Kunwar Singh, I have been unable to find anything significant about the besiegers. Even the first-hand accounts at the time don't contain any detail such as names or precise numbers - it's an unfortunate problem I've encountered before while researching events during the Indian Mutiny, which I suspect is down to the general chaotic situation at the time. As for modern views, the latest work I could find that covered the siege in any detail was from 1910 - there are passing mentions (maybe a sentence long) in later works but many modern books I looked at, about Kunwar Singh for example, don't even mention the siege. I only found out about the siege myself by accident while I was correcting errors in the Bengal Native Infantry article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just checking as it's always better to make sure! We just need a source spot check then. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sarastro1: and yes, it's my first FAC. If I've made any mistakes feel free to point them out! Exemplo347 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's copyvio is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 8 - used twice, material faithful to source
  • FN 20 - used once, material faithful to source
  • FN 24 - used once, material faithful to source
  • FN 41 - used once, material faithful to source

Spot check all in order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sourcing: I'm going to recuse as coordinator from this one because I have concerns over the sourcing. I see that Casliber did a spot check above but I'd already had a quick look and found a few problems with spot checks. I think they are solvable, and as Cas didn't find any problems above, it is not throughout the whole article. All the sources are books available online, which makes checking quite easy. However...

  • I checked the first part of background and there is a lot of unattributed material. From a glance, this repeats in a few other places, and I get the impression that the references were added after the text was written (but I could be wrong). I think everything that is in the article can be attributed from the sources (I recognised several incidents mentioned later in the article when I checked the references), but at the moment I don't think it quite matches up.
  • The first references cover a substantial number of sentences. But from these references, I cannot verify quite a few statements: "On 10 May 1857, a mutiny by the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry, a Bengal Army unit stationed in Meerut, triggered the Indian Mutiny, which quickly spread through the Bengal Presidency": Other than the month of May, the rest is not supported by the three refs given; nothing about Bengal, the date of the 10th, nothing about which units were involved, nothing about how it spread. These need attribution.
  • "The town of Arrah, headquarters of Shahabad district, had a population at the time that largely consisted of Bengal Native Infantry sepoys, British and European employees of the East India Company and the East Indian Railway Company, and their respective families." I can find attribution for Arrah containing Europeans and Sepoys (although not "Bengal Native Infantry"), but not that Arrah was the headquarters, nor that anyone worked for the East India Company or the East Indian Railway Company. Arguably, the references support the Europeans having family there, but nothing more than that.
  • "In addition, there was a local police force and a jail holding between 400 and 500 inmates, with 150 armed prison guards. A large number of sepoys from regiments that had been disbanded had returned to their homes in Shahabad district and the population also included many retired sepoys living on their pensions." One of the three sources gives "three of four hundred prisoners", another "two or three hundred". There is nothing about disbanded regiments returning, nor retired sepoys. It does give the number of Sepoys in Arrah before the siege, a number I would have thought was important.
  • "Stationed in Dinapore, 25 miles (40.2 km) away, were three regiments of Bengal Native Infantry—the 7th, 8th and 40th Regiments. They had been recruited entirely from Shahabad district and were loyal to the local zamindar (chieftain or landlord) Kunwar Singh (also known as Koor, Coer, Koer, or Kooer Sing).": The reference given for these statements supports "three regiments of native infantry" (again, not Bengal) and where they were recruited from, and their loyalty to "Goer Sing". But the regiment numbers and the variant names for Kunwar Singh (the only name given is Goer Sing) are not supported.
  • "Singh, who was around 80 years of age, had a number of grievances against the East India Company regarding deprivation of his lands and income, and was described as "the high-souled chief of a warlike tribe, who had been reduced to a nonentity by the yoke of a foreign invader" by George Trevelyan in his 1864 book The Competition Wallah.": The given reference supports his age, and that he was not too happy with "the yoke of a foreign invader" but does not support his specific grievances. The quotation is as given.
  • "On 8 June, Arthur Littledale, a judge working in Arrah, received a letter from William Tayler, the commissioner of Patna district, warning him that an outbreak of mutiny from the Bengal Native Infantry units in Dinapore was to be expected": The given reference supports the sending of a letter on 8 June, but not who sent it, to Mr W Tayler. It mentions "an insurrection of natives" but not the Bengal Native Infantry.
  • "The European population in Arrah spent that night at Littledale's house, and the following morning a meeting was held at the house of Herwald Wake, the magistrate of Shahabad district. During this meeting it was decided that the European women and children were to be sent by boat to Dinapore, escorted by armed members of the European male population, where they would be taken into the care of the 10th Regiment of Foot—this decision was acted upon the same day": The given reference mentions that non-officials were to make their way on boat or horseback to Dinapore, but nothing about women and children, and nothing about this meeting, or when it was acted upon.
  • I also noticed, a little worryingly, that the Sieveking book is pretty much paraphrasing large chunks of the Halls book, at least for this section. I'm not sure we should be using a source which relies so heavily on another source (which we are also using).
  • I stopped there. It is possible that wrong page numbers have been cited, but there was enough that matches to make me think that the pages are correct. A possible problem is that some references are used to cover several sentences, and they are not strong enough to do that. Referencing smaller chunks might help.
  • It could be argued that some of the above information does not require a source as it is well-known. However, I did not know the information, and neither will the majority of readers. The standard of referencing at FA is such that all information like this must be referenced.
  • I would imagine that a lot of the more general background, such as the information that the Bengal Infantry were the unit involved, is available in a general history of the "Indian Mutiny". The nominator made the point above that "the latest work I could find that covered the siege in any detail was from 1910" and that modern books do not cover it in any detail. But the more I think about this, the less comfortable I am that we are not using ANY modern general histories. For background, if nothing else, these are surely essential, and I would imagine some of them contain something about the siege as well, even if just a sentence. A google books search throws up several mentions of Arrah (I haven't checked the quality of the books, but at least one is an encyclopaedia). I think modern works are essential for context.
  • Following on from this, I realise that there is nothing in the Aftermath section about later events in the Mutiny; i.e. how it ended. The general reader will very likely not know what came next, and a few sentences to tell them would be a great help.

In short, the referencing needs a considerable amount of work. Therefore, I'm afraid I have to oppose for the moment, and need convincing that the article is fully sourced before I strike this. Feel free to argue or to explain if I'm being rather stupid and have missed something. Sorry to do this so late in the nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Sarastro1:, thanks for your time. I've now gone through the article again, moving citations to the specific statements they support where appropriate. I've also added to the Aftermath section - it did already indicate what Kunwar Singh's forces did next, so I added a little bit of further background. I must address the issue with modern sourcing, however - even in the search link you have provided, there is nothing that gives any detailed analysis. This result is an analysis of a Rudyard Kipling story; this encyclopaedia entry is only a paragraph and does not include key details and this book only contains the image that I've used in the article's infobox, without any other information. I really don't want to sound like I'm being an ass - it's just that there's no modern writing about this subject. All the in-depth results that appear, at first glance, to be new books are in fact reprints of much older works - the first result in that search you linked was a 2006 reprint of a 1912 book - and the single Google Books result from the 21st century from my search contains only a short mention, focusing instead on Kunwar Singh's wider activities. Therefore I'm not sure that the request for a modern history perspective is actionable (and I'm still aware that I sound like an ass, for which I can only say sorry - it's not intentional!). Exemplo347 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further spot-checks: I checked the issues I had previously identified, and these seem to have been, in the main, sorted. I did some further spot-checks and found further issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For their actions during the siege, Wake was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath": Source does not give reasons, merely confirms that he received the award.
  • "Although an attempt was made to smoke the men out of the house by making a large fire of furniture and chilli peppers, a last-minute shift in wind direction blew the smoke away from the house": In the source, we have "The rebels made an attempt later to smoke out the garrison, by bringing quantities of straw and bamboos, which they lighted, and into which they threw chillies (red peppers); but thanks to the kindly offices of the wind, which shifted at a crucial moment, the danger to the bungalow was averted." This may seem like nit-picking, but the source does not mention furniture, but says that straw and bamboo was used to light the fire, and then chillies were added. It does not explicitly say a large fire, and while I concede that "quantities" may mean a large number, technically (and particularly in "Victorian-Speak") this does not have to be so. I'm afraid this carelessness with the source material does not fill me with confidence if we can stretch such a simple issue; it also shows the dangers of interpreting older books.
  • "The mutineers and rebel forces did not attempt another charge on the building, although its occupants expected an attack at any moment during the siege.": This is sourced to an issue of the London Gazette, across five pages, pp. 3418-22. The only possible mention which supports this is on p 3422. Unless I’ve missed it, although the charge is mentioned, this statement is not supported at all. Again, it could be argued that the absence of another charge in the report implies that no further one took place (although I'd be uncomfortable stretching it so far) but it does not even give the vaguest hint that another attack was expected. I would also note that this is basically a primary source as it reprints letters (I assume official reports) from commanding officers and the like (in this case, a report from Wake); these five pages are used several times and I have not attempted to verify any other statements, but the information for which they are cited looks uncontroversial and would not be a problem.
  • "During the retreat from Arrah, Ross Mangles and William Fraser McDonell (civilian magistrates, and personal friends of Wake, who had volunteered to serve with Dunbar's expedition) earned the Victoria Cross—Mangles, despite being wounded, carried a wounded soldier from the 37th Regiment of Foot for several miles while under fire": The reference supports Mangles being awarded the VC, that he volunteered to serve with Dunbar's force, and that he carried a wounded soldier from the 37th "under a murderous fire" while being wounded. However, it makes no mention of his occupation, or his friendship with Wake. And McDonell is not mentioned at all in the given source, but in the one cited next (this could be sorted by moving references around a little: make sure the reference covers all the text that it comes after).
  • "and McDonnell exposed himself to heavy fire to cut a rope that was preventing a boat from making its escape, saving the lives of 35 soldiers": The source is a little vague but supports this; however, it's not clear that he cut a rope preventing the boat making its escape; the source says he went "up to the rudder, and with considerable difficulty cut through the lashing which secured it to the side of the boat. On the lashing being cut, the boat obeyed the helm, and thus thirty-five European Soldiers escaped certain death." My reading of this would be that he cut away the rudder, but the problem here is that I'm interpreting; without more information, it is not clear what this means and we are in danger of having to interpret primary sources. Also, the source does not support he or Mangles being magistrates of friends of Wake.
  • I'm also slightly concerned that we may have a touch of close paraphrasing. This is very borderline, and the only instance I've found, but I'd just feel a little happier if the structure and wording had fewer similarities to the source: Article: ...who had volunteered to serve with Dunbar's expedition... Mangles, despite being wounded, carried a wounded soldier from the 37th Regiment of Foot for several miles while under fire
Source: Mr. Mangles volunteered and served with the Force ... The Force fell into an Ambuscade on the night of the 29th of July, 1857, and, during the retreat on the next morning, Mr. Mangles, with signal gallantry and generous self-devotion, and notwithstanding that he had himself been previously wounded, carried for several miles, out of action, a wounded soldier of Her Majesty's 37th Regiment, after binding up his wounds under a murderous fire
  • "At the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny these were the only "native" troops in Shahabad district. They had been recruited entirely from Shahabad district and were loyal to the local zamindar (chieftain or landlord) Kunwar Singh": To me, this is unsupported by the source. I imagine that the part which we are citing is "And besides all this, Koer Singh, the greatest landholder (or Zemindar) of the district, who was the most influential man in the neighbourhood among the native soldiers, was strongly suspected to be plotting against the English." There is nothing else even remotely connected, but I do not feel this supports that they were the only "native" troops in the Shahabad district, or that they were from that area. I also note the different spelling of zamindar.
  • Variant names of Kunwar Singh: three are referenced to Sievking, which suggests that this was a rather ignorant lack of consistency, rather than he was known by different names.
  • "Discussions had taken place between Tayler and his superiors about disarming the three regiments of Bengal Native Infantry stationed in Dinapore, and Governor-General Charles Canning delegated responsibility for the decision to Major General George Lloyd, military commander of the Dinapore division": Sorry, but the source does not support this. The outline is supported, but not the detail - a common problem in this article. The source has (unless I've missed something on the page given): "Not a British officer, except the major-general, doubted that these Europeans could have disarmed and controlled the sepoys, had the attempt been made at the proper time. The Calcutta inhabitants had petitioned the governor-general to disarm the native regiments at Dinapoor, and the officers of the Queen's regiments at that station had all along advocated a similar measure; but General Lloyd, like many other Company's officers, was proud of the sepoys, and trusted them to the last ; and Viscount Canning placed reliance on his experience, to determine whether and when to effect this disarming. This reliance ended in unfortunate results." There is no mention here of Tayler (he is mentioned earlier on the page, but not in connection with this) or of any discussions, nor of the number of regiments, nor of them being Bengal Native Infantry, nor any delegation to Lloyd.

I'm afraid my oppose stands. There are still big issues here, and the closer I look, the unhappier I am feeling with how this article has been sourced. I have no doubt that it is accurate and that all the information here is somewhere in the sources. But the citations are not doing what they are claimed to do at the moment, and this is a big problem. It needs going through almost line by line and checking that the information in the article is definitely supported by the reference given. The nominator may want to get some help in on this one, otherwise I can see this being too big a job. I am quite happy to check again, but the more problems that we are finding, the more checking will need doing to clear this for verification. There may come a point when that is no longer worth doing in this FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- it's been a week since Sarastro's last posting reiterating his concerns and I haven't seen any progress; regrettably, I think we'll need to archive this to allow the nominator to make a thorough check of the referencing, after which I hope to see it renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2017 (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/Siege_of_Arrah/archive1&oldid=1138471435"