Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/3rd Bengal Light Cavalry

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After spotting an annoying red-link in articles related to the Indian rebellion of 1857, and not being a fan of placeholder stub articles, I decided to do a bit of research about the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry. It was the actions of this unit that triggered the wider mutiny of the East India Company's Bengal Army but the unit itself, according to modern historians, is relatively unknown even in India. Being a bit of a nosey geek, I dug up what I could and turned it into an article! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, nice work. Overall, looks quite good to me. Just a couple of minor suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a couple of "harvn" errors in the References: Hunter and Stafford. These do not appear to have corresponding short citations in the body of the article
  • for the two Amin works, "Defence Journal" should probably be in italics (not the website) as it is the name of the publication
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illustrated London News", as above, should be in italics
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mens'..." --> "men's..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An information plaque containing..." --> "An information plaque listing..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts went on to say "After careful..." --> "Roberts went on to say "after careful..." (you can probably just silently adjust the capitalisation here to conform with sentence case capitalisation).
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest the addition of "Category:Military units and formations established in 1796" and "Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1857"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for an article on the unit itself (rather than just its involvement in the Indian Mutiny), I think its battle history should be expanded a bit more to cover what it did during the three wars it appears to have fought in (Second Anglo-Maratha War, the First Anglo-Afghan War and the First Anglo-Sikh War). Would probably only need a reasonable sized paragraph on each, I think
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for A-class, I think it would be good to expand the lead a little more to potentially two paragraphs to summarise the regiment's pre-Mutiny battle history a bit more
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by auntieruth Nice article! A few quibbles!!

  • need links in lead to wars, and links at first mention.
  • Commander in chief -- chief should be capitalized.
  • the list of battle honors is awkward--perhaps it should included in the text of the previous paragraphs. Do we know what they did to obtain their battle honors?
  • explanation of "drill" (or a link), or a combination of both.
nice job! auntieruth (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Auntieruth55: I've made the changes you suggested. Just for your info, the battle honours in these cases were awarded for participation in the battles - beyond that, I have not been able to find specifics for this unit other than the fact that they were there and that they were awarded the battle honours. In the one case where I was able to find detailed information about an award (the Honorary Standard) I already incorporated the information into the article. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no problem on that. I reread it, and had one further comment: wouldn't it be useful to explain this in the context of the larger mutiny? and its causes? Seemed tome that there were some fundamental issues about perceived challenges to Indian religious foundations. Also, seems to me that this should at least mention the Enfield Rifle, because this was the weapon that the cav needed to learn to use. It's fundamentally different from their own muskets, which was why the "drill" was necessary. BTW, also, Governor-General should have both caps. Like Commander-in-Chief. auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: The reason I've chosen to narrow the focus to the specific reasons for this unit's mutiny, rather than going into the causes of the wider mutiny, is one of article balance. The Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article, itself a spin-off from the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article, is a mix of theories, some referenced, some not, whereas in this specific unit's case, the reasons for its mutiny have been documented carefully. I have added Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, and the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is linked within the article's body. Regarding a mention of the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle, it is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Meerut" section of the article. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the Enfield link. Missed it before. I still think it would be worthwhile to add a sentence or two at beginning and end and in lead that this was part of the wider problem that gave rise to the Indian Rebellion. It feels "adrift" to me. But it's not enough to stop support for A-class. I fixed a couple of spaces (extra ones). Nice job! auntieruth (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [1] (no action req'd).
    • "..Major General Hewitt convened a Court of Inquiry..." remove rank here (and subsequent instances) as usually only used at first instance per MOS:SURNAME
    • ".. the choice by Lieutenant Colonel Carmichael-Smyth..." as above re rank.
    • "...Lieutenant MacNabb, felt that the drill..." is MacNabb's first name available in the source? If so it should be added.
    • "... Brigadier General Wilson of the Bengal Artillery..." is Wilson's first name known?
    • Otherwise, I've read through this and couldn't find any major issues. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Anotherclown: All your concerns have been addressed (thanks AustralianRupert). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: - in the absence of one of our more regular image reviewers I've looked over the images now. They all appear to be PD and have the appropriate information and templates as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • source review in the absence of regular source review editors, I've looked at the sources; most of them are current sources, with a few exceptions of contemporary commentary. Earwig's tool report is [here auntieruth (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/3rd_Bengal_Light_Cavalry&oldid=788436238"