Talk:First Opium War/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 16:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the submission. I will take this one hopefully in the coming days. Alex Shih (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

...appointed viceroy Lin Zexu: I think it's more precise to link to Viceroy of Huguang
(it had already been illegal to smoke and sell certain forms of opium in China since 1729): This should incorporated into prose as opposed to parentheses; it also needs a source, as the supporting paragraph from the "Opium trade" section also does not seem to have a direct source.
In 1842, the Qing dynasty was forced to sign: The final straw for the Qing government appears to be Royal Navy threatening to siege Nanking; this should be included to provide more clarity on the context
led to the Second Opium War (1856–60), and the Qing defeat resulted in social unrest within China: This is potentially misleading. One of the major social unrests (the Taiping Rebellion, as described in the "Legacy" section) already took place after the First Opium War; the immediate result of the Second Opium War in China should be the Self-Strengthening Movement. Alex Shih (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: hopefully* addressed. Let me know if you have more feedback (or comments on my corrections), all is welcome.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter never reached the Queen[edit]

How can an open letter not reach the Queen? -Inowen (nlfte) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting question. Almost every source agrees Victoria never received the letter, but few explain why. Many, including Hanes & Sanello and Peter Ward Fay, state that the letter was lost in transit or never received. Hanes, Sanello and a few other sources state the letter was published in the Times of London, though a date is not given (H & S note it was "belatedly"). Other sources state the letter (also described as a memorandum) was only published in a small, foreign operated paper in Canton and thus never reached Britain. Peter Ward Fay, who I personally believe wrote the best sourced book (The Opium War, 1840–1842: Barbarians in the Celestial Empire in the Early Part of the Nineteenth Century and the Way by Which They Forced the Gates Ajar) on the war, notes on Page 173 that "Queen Victoria, however, had no opportunity to feel good or bad or anything else. She never saw the letter; Lin could not hit on a satisfactory way of getting it to her; as for the foreigners, they did not know it was even being prepared." Fay also notes that much of the letter's contents were unknown in the West before the translation work of Arthur Waley; This seems to be true, as many sources cite Waley as a source for the well-known incarnation of Lin's letter.

In short, the only thing that is known (per the RS I can find) is that the letter was never received by Victoria, and I haven't been able to find sources saying she did receive the letter.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

British ships began to appear sporadically around the coasts of China from 1635: I am assuming the year of "1635" comes from the title of "The Chronicles of the East India Company, Trading to China 1635-1834", in which I don't have access, and it is not included in this article. Is the year "1635" supported by the Spence 1999 source? If not, a specific claim like this should be supported.
...Rhetoric regarding the tributary status of Europeans was muted: Might want to explain both the context and what this sentence actually means.
The Imperial laws that upheld the system were collectively known as the Prevention Barbarian Ordinances: There is certainly better translation available; "Vigilance Towards Foreign Barbarian Regulations" used in Canton System seem to generate more search results outside of mirrors. In any case, zh:防範外夷規條 should be linked.
...several were Cantonese or Han in origin: Isn't it common for Han or Cantonese to serve as mandarin, especially in the lower level?
While this trading heavily favored the Chinese and resulted in European nations sustaining large trade deficits: In the previous section, we have learned that "trading in China was extremely lucrative for European and Chinese merchants alike", there seems to be some contradictions. I think the relationship between European merchants and their government needs to be explained better, otherwise the prose for the trade deficit section at the moment is slightly confusing for me.
To step away from the topic for a moment: This article currently uses various forms of citation. Per WP:CITEVAR, we should try to use consistent referencing style.
The difference of the company-set price of raw opium and the sale price of refined opium at auction (minus expenses) was pure profit made by the East India Company: This seems like a rather complicated concept that could be explained in a more comprehensible manner.
After the effective ban on opium in 1796, the line of distinction between foreign merchants and smugglers should be drawn; were they the same at this point?
While the Qing government was not explicitly anti-trade, a lack of need for imports and increasingly heavy taxes on luxury goods limited pressure on the government: While I understand what this sentence is saying, it can be phrased with more clarity; right now it sounds as if the "lack of need" and "heavy taxes" were some kind of outside influence when they were the direct actions/stance taken by the Qing court.
Great Britain bolstered its military strength in Southern China: Underlined for emphasis; misleading statement, more likely "off the coast of Guangdong".
While some officials tolerated this (Macau-based Jesuits had been active in China since the early 17th century), some officials clashed with Chinese Christians: Two issues with this sentence; it strikes me as ambiguous and lacking the context.
The White Lotus Rebellion (1796–1804) drained the Qing dynasty's treasury of silver: How?
The merchants of Canton were further expected to make contributions to fight banditry: Who?
this allowed Canton to mint many Chinese coins from a few melted-down western coins: Something needs to be explained here. Is this referring to official minting or private minting (Chinese: 私铸)?
Thank you for addressing the concerns, SamHolt6 (also courtesy ping to BlueMoonset to note that I have received the previous ping). That's it from me for today; forgive me for my tardiness, but since this is a broad topic it would probably still take me longer to go through each remaining sections (if I can be focused and not be distracted by other things). My apologies and thank you for your patience. Alex Shih (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation of tensions[edit]

while its merchants profited from the legal sale in China of a drug that was banned in Britain: Shouldn't it be illegal sale in China, which is what the letter implies? If the sentence was meant to say the British government permitted the export of opium to China, it should be re-worded.
Lin banned the sale of opium: This is also misleading; the sale of opium was already banned, I am assuming what Lin appears to have done is cracking down on these illegal sales after his arrival to Canton in March 1839.
Palmerston also issued a list of objectives that the British government wanted accomplished: Where are the following objectives sourced from?

- Any update on this reviews progress? AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, SamHolt6 has yet to make any edits in response to the October 17 review points made by Alex Shih, which may be why further sections of the review have yet to be posted. Some action is needed soon; the review has been open for five months minus a week. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: you assessment is correct, and I am currently lacking the time and will to act on the recommended changes. I support striking the nomination.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to finish up the review and strike the nomination within this week. Alex Shih (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the review[edit]

Reviewer Alex Shih retired on February 10. Given SamHolt6's agreement that the nomination should be closed, and Alex Shih's retirement, I am closing the review myself, since no one is left to do so. SamHolt6, if someday you do have time to address the issues raised above, once you've done so, please feel free to renominate the article if you think you'll have both time and will to address issues in the rest of the article once a reviewer takes up the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]