Talk:James Tod/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Catching up on past talk page friction. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking out the peer review. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

• One ambiguous link to Macaulay in an authorlink parameter; should be typed as authorlink=Thomas Babington Macaulay, not just the last name.
• Three image galleries are positioned in the center of the page using the HTML code "<center>". This code is not supported in HTML 5, and should be replaced in some fashion.
• Stray comma in image caption: "Etching of Jug Mandir Palace, Lake Pichola, Udaipur. Plate 8 of Tod's, Annals (1829)"
• I don't think "citing ill-health" needs a hyphen.
• Two page ranges use a spaced en dash when an unspaced en dash is required. (The page ranges are both in lower case Roman numerals.)
• The appropriate textual spaced en dashes benefit from a non-breaking space in front, per WP:NBSP. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This review may take me a day or two. Even before I am fully done, feel free to edit the article in light of the above points, and I will strike through any of my suggestions that I feel are addressed. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've done all of the above, I think. I had earlier raised a query regarding the galleries & so have now converted to right-aligned individual images. I'm not an aesthetic type of person but doubtless some of them could be moved to left-aligned if anyone feels that this would give balance to the presentation. Obviously, the portrait/bust etc need to stay aligned so that the subject faces into the page but the maps, for example, could be moved across. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Striking addressed points. Review continues. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please comment on the hidden note following the first paragraph. It says "Here we need some comments on his main areas of notability." What's the status of that expressed concern?
• No hyphen needed in "newly-established".
• A spaced en dash should replace the hyphen in the quote, "...plotted in a certain way - there are villains..."
• Per WP:WIAGA, Good Articles must meet the guideline for lead sections, found at WP:LEAD. Per lead, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I don't understand why non-notable Vijay Vaishishtha is given a very prominent quote about Tod when Vaishishtha is not important to the scholarship about Tod. Like Fowler&fowler who commented on the article's talk page, I think it is kind of weird that Vaishishtha is quoted, and it is further problematic that the reader may not know who Herodotus is, and the quote is not explained later. Vaishishtha is not present in any other part of the article, so his presence in the lead is not even a summary of article content. Wouldn't it be good enough to describe Tod's notability and importance without quoting a non-notable person?
• This sentence could be trimmed of the word been: "The royal court was moved around the kingdom, rather than been situated permanently in one place."
• Suggested trim for reading flow: "...in order to exert overall, although indirect, control over the area." => "...in order to exert indirect control over the area."
• "The anonymous author of the introduction to his posthumously published book, Travels in Western India..." This construction can be mistaken as describing an anonymous book. Specify that it is Tod's book.
• "His responsibilities were extended quickly: initially involving himself with [list of place names]". The place names are not familiar to many readers, so specify that Tod's responsibilities were extended to additional regions.
• One of the Wheeler references is devoid of context. Actually, shouldn't the in-article mention of Stephen Wheeler simply be a mention of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Yes, Wheeler wrote the Tod entry but the book is the respected entity, not so much contributor Stephen Wheeler.
• I think this needs a hyphen: "then fashionable concept" => "then-fashionable concept"
• The first time we meet Jason Freitag in the article text his full name should be used. Same with the first footnote expressing his opinion.
• Footnote #4 should replace his with Tod's.
• Add some more categories. Suggestions: English people of Scottish descent, People from Islington (district), Fellows of the Royal Asiatic Society (was he a Fellow or just a member?), British East India Company Army officers, Woolwich graduates (did he actually graduate?), and British cartographers. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Other elements of the article check out in regard to Good Article standards. I will put the review on hold while the points above are addressed/discussed. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I know that you've expressed concerns about writing leads before; I'll tackle that part later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Leads definitely are not my forte, nor images. I am getting better (says me!), but I am still a long way off the mark. Regarding the other points, I will address them in a few hours' time but off the top of my head can see only one point where some sort of discussion may result, and I doubt that will consume much time. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at the lead; I'm going to walk away for the moment and come back with fresh eyes later. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead is better without Vaishishtha and so meets GA standards. For FA, I think a bit more notability needs to be established in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that all points are now addressed other than any further work on the lead. Qwryxian is, IIRC, the fourth person to rewrite it, if you include my own abysmal attempt. All contributions have, of course, been appreciated.

I have a copy of Freitag's PhD thesis here and there may be the odd nugget within the thing, but it seems mostly to be a precursor to his book & therefore the book trumps it as being more recent. Regarding categories, I have never been able to ascertain whether he was a Fellow of the RAS but I feel that it would have been mentioned by Freitag, by Crooke or by obituarists if in fact he had been; similarly, I have not been able to ascertain whether he formally graduated from Woolwich. I suppose that I could always write to the RAS to confirm/deny, btw, and that might just scrape through WP:V because anyone else could also ask them to check.

The point that I was going to query does not in fact matter: I wanted to ensure that the article contained a statement that British control in the region was indirect because it is crucial to understanding the practical side of Tod's worldview ... and it does.

A big issue that has arisen regarding my own self-development seems clearly to be the need for me to get a grip on en- and em-dashes. I will try harder. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation #3 still says only 'Wheeler'. It should have some context, probably joining the other named Wheeler refs. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. I completely missed that one because I thought that you were referring to the redlink for a Wheeler article cf a blue link to the ODNB article. Either way, the cite was still incorrect & should indeed have been grouped with the others. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work, all! GA listed. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)