Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2, 2019

I don't believe that "constituting" is the correct word in the 4th sentence: it is not an identification made in the article. The country and the peninsula are not coterminous. I think we would need something like "Much of the country is made up of the large peninsular landmass of the Indian subcontinent", but there should also be clarity about which "it" pushed north from deep in the southern hemisphere. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Company rule in India indeed started 190 years before independence, but that did not mean that India was part of the British Empire then: that happened with transference of powers to the British Raj in 1858. "After 190 years of British rule, India gained its independence in 1947". Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you point me to the blurb? I seem to have forgotten all about it. Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the blurb, F&F. I don't have any problems wiht the suggested changes, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Silly me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you have some valid points. We have guests, so expect a reply sometime tomorrow morning. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Kevin McE: for spotting the errors, and for your critical insight. Also pinging @Dank: @Vanamonde93: @RegentsPark: How about this version:

India is a large country in South Asia. Dominating the peninsula of the Indian subcontinent, India owes its geography, climate and biodiversity to ancient plate tectonics which pushed the Indian plate north from deep in the Southern Hemisphere. Modern humans first migrated into the subcontinent over 55,000 years ago, and settled life emerged in the western margins of the Indus River basin 9,000 years ago. Second only to Africa in human genetic diversity, India is home to a large mix of languages, religions, and cultures. India is the world's largest democracy, with a population of 1.3 billion people, and a secular federal republic governed in a parliamentary system. It is the world's third-largest economy in purchasing power parity, as well as the fastest-growing major economy. After 190 years in the British Empire, India gained its independence in 1947. Mahatma Gandhi (born 2 October 1869) is widely considered to be the founder of the modern nation. (Full article...)

I've changed "constituting" for "dominating." Thank you for that. Although using "India" for the Indian tectonic plate is commonly done, I've added Indian plate. I've removed "multi-cultural" because it is repeated in the "large mix" bit. I've rearranged the order of the sentences so that geography etc is in one place. The first few sentences also serve the purpose of making an unfamiliar user aware of the expressions, "India," "South Asia," and the "Indian subcontinent."

Now to the British Empire. The British Empire page had managed to forget about the Raj (i.e. Crown rule, Direct rule) in its section title until my recent intervention. In other words, Company rule in India is very much considered to be part of the British Empire's spread, the Company increasingly acting as a sovereign power on behalf of the Crown, or the Crown increasingly controlling the Company's doings, sending troops to fight its wars, and so forth. The bibliography of the India page itself speaks to this:

• Peers, D. M. (3 August 2006), India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885 (1st ed.), Pearson Longman, ISBN 978-0-582-31738-3
• Copland, I. (8 October 2001), India 1885–1947: The Unmaking of an Empire (1st ed.), Longman, ISBN 978-0-582-38173-5

The back cover of Peer's book says, "Between 1700 and 1885 the British became the paramount power on the Indian subcontinent, their authority extending from Sri Lanka in the south to the Himalaya's in the north. It was a massive empire, inspiring both pride and anxiety amongst the British, and forcing change upon the lives of its Indian subjects." The 1885 date (and not 1858 the beginning of Crown rule), incidentally, is a reference both to the Third Anglo-Burmese War (which capped the expansion of British rule that began informally with the founding of Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, and formally with the Battle of Plassey in 1757) and the founding of the Indian National Congress which spelled the Empire's unmaking, not just in India but in Africa and Asia as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you: I like that, and the rearrangement of sentences works particularly well. Kevin McE (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• A few comments from me, as this blurb seems to differ quite substantially from the text of the article... I understand that for a big topic like this, in which the lede is quite substantial, it will be a hard job to condense it into a short TFA blurb, but it seems like the text should still be supported somehow, preferably in what's in the lede. For example:
  • "Dominating the peninsula of the Indian subcontinent" - I'm not seeing the word "dominating" anywhere in the article. The lede doesn't mention this, and the geography section says "India comprises the bulk of the Indian subcontinent". It would be better to use that wording.
  • "Modern humans first migrated into the subcontinent over 55,000 years ago" - the lede says, in a similar number of words, "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago.", which seems a more encyclopedic and polished line.
  • "It is the world's third-largest economy in purchasing power parity, as well as the fastest-growing major economy - neither of these facts is mentioned in the article lede. And the body qualifies the latter statement with: "making it potentially the world's fastest-growing major economy".
  • The final line seems a bit odd to me... Gandhi is not mentioned at all in the lede of the article, and only once in the body, with the line "the beginnings of a nonviolent movement of non-co-operation, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol". I'm generally wary of saying "widely considered" per WP:WEASEL, and as this is unsupported by further detail in the article, we should amend it to something else. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead was rewritten recently. I was waiting for the GOCE copy edit to end to transfer the citations of the lead to the history and other sections. Please give me a few days. I don't believe though that a blurb needs to be a close paraphrase of the lead. Why would a reader want a repetition of the prose again when they click on the article? "Dominating" is a reasonable paraphrase of "comprising the bulk of." "Over 55,000 years ago" is a reasonable paraphrase of "no later than 55,000 years ago." Gandhi was mentioned in the lead of the article until a month ago. He is still mentioned implicitly ("a pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance"); the explicit mention was taken out because of the TFA appearance of India on his 150th birthday, and the caution sounded by some reviewers about keeping his mention understated. There are plenty references for Gandhi being the "leading genius," the "the principal architect," "the father of the nation" in India. I don't believe "widely considered" in this instance is a weasel word. However, I will incorporate the spirit of your critique in the phrasing in several places. Like I said, please give me a few days. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried, but transferring the citations etc from the lead to the history sections will take more time than I have now, and will have until after the TFA. I really am flat out of time. I am reasonably sure that what is in the blurb is true, even if there are slight differences in phrasing between the blurb and the main article. India is the fastest-growing major economy. You can see that by clicking on the link in fast-growing major economy in the lead. India is the seventh, and the first six are small. It is the third-largest economy in PPP. You can see that in the infobox of India. I respect your suggestions but am unwilling to change the text, especially as the article has just had a GOCE review for the TFA. But others who have worked on the TFA may have other views. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I'm making a couple of changes as a result of your suggestions. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks... will take another look tomorrow.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian Plate or Indian plate?

The blurb has been changed to capitalise 'plate' in the name of avoiding a redirect. The India article uses lower case 'plate' throughout, the article Indian Plate is inconsistent, which I have pointed out on its talk page, with a slight majority of upper case. Which is it going to be? Kevin McE (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the place to argue this would be at Talk:Indian Plate, but I don't feel strongly about it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As already stated, I had raised it there. Someone there has made it consistent around the capitalised version, so I guess this should do the same. I'll check that India article is consistent. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is India a tiger? Are tigers India?

Alongside an extract about the country India, we have an unexplained and uncaptioned picture of a tiger. There is a note in the picture, stating that 'India has the majority of the world's wild tigers' (sourced in an exceptionally long caption but not in the main text), but that isn't going to be seen by most. Most people know that there are tigers in India, but that is not really sufficient to justify the unexplained picture. Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's always going to be a difficult decision how to distill an entire country down to just one image... Just checked what happened with my Rwanda article, and it seems a lake and volcano pic were used, but also without further context. I personally think this is OK... As you say, tigers are prominently associated with India, and the image in question is a featured picture. A caption would be better, but presumably TFA does not use them for whatever reason.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 11:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well. This for me was a difficult decision. I kept the caption short because I was under the impression that it too was included in the character count for which there was an upper limit of 1000. The reason why the tiger is there is that the increase by some 30% in the number of wild tigers in India in the quadrennial tiger-census was announced in late July at the time I was helping compose the TFA blurb. Although these numbers have been exaggerated in the last two censuses, it is still, in my view, a piece of important news. (A single wild tiger requires a very large area of viable prey populations, in a relatively dense jungle environment which allows a tiger to use camouflage to stalk its prey. Wild tigers will not survive in a Ngorongoro crater where everything is visible. Each prey population, in turn, requires ample natural resources in a complex, many-tiered ecology. Not the same thing as the cute, obese, genetically-abused creatures running around in Seigfried and Roy's Las Vegas ranch, or the ones in the zoos here whose celebrity directors make smarmy claims on Animal Planet about the tiger being really, really in danger in the wild and they being its saviors. The census itself apparently needed over 26,000 camera traps and over 100,000 rangers) So there I said it. :) But that was my justification. In a blurb that mentions the human occupation of India, I thought the tiger as a visual counterpoint, a symbol of the last unoccupied bit, made sense. That it is a Featured Picture is an added bonus. (Pretty much all the pictures in the article are FPs.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

PS I had originally added File:Rajagopal speaking to 25,000 people, Janadesh 2007, India.jpg, a picture of a Gandhian activist addressing a large group of Adivasi people, a nod to Gandhi's 150th on October 2. But then I changed my mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Did you consider using an image of Gandhi himself, given that the dating of the blurb is linked to him and he is mentioned as well? I'm personally fine with the tiger, but would be OK with that one too if people feel that's more suitable.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A Gandhi picture is fine too. Let me look through his portfolio. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A sculpture of Mahatma Gandhi by Indian sculptor Gautam Pal in São Paulo, Brazil.

Here is one, a Wikipedian's effort. Most black and white images of Gandhi have copyright issues. I still prefer the tiger though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I raised the issue at WP:ERRORS#Day-after-tomorrow's FA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've converted the image title to a visible caption. For the record, I have no objection to the use of the tiger image, which I regard as suitable for the reasons discussed above. Many other image selections would be reasonable as well, of course. —David Levy 19:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)