Talk:First Opium War/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 10:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very detailed and well sourced, and, given the historical effects of the war, I'm glad that the SamHolt6 has nominated it for GA status. Some initial comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A21388322 has been redirected to https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A21388322 – perhaps the link needs to be fixed.
Is it possible to provide page numbers for Jack Gladstone, Richard Evans and Michael Kort's books?
"The opium was auctioned in Calcutta on the condition that it be shipped by British traders to China, where profits were guaranteed." Citation needed.
"resulted in the empire minting 40 million silver shillings among other coins". I'm unable to locate the exact reference in the source.
"Fighting ceased for the winter of 1841 while the British resupplied and dealt with a cholera outbreak." Not in source.
There are inconsistencies with the way references are formatted. For example, please compare footnotes 23, 36 and 39. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent improvements and GA nom

This discussion has been moved from Talk:First Opium War.

This page has improved tremendously over the last few months. Having been on my watchlist for years and creating almost every battle article of this war, this is great to see. However, I respectfully don't think this is ready for GA status yet. (But it should be OK to update the C ratings to a B at the very least). Obviously this a big topic with lots of things to cover. But this article is still too...I guess the word that comes to mind is fragmented. What I mean is it's missing key info in painting an overall clear and cohesive historical narrative - particularly on the military history (which is why it's full of 2-3 sentence paragraphs). For example, the very first armed conflict of the war (Battle of Kowloon) and the events leading up to it weren't added until over a month after the GA nomination! Another example is the article's lack of British justification of war (beyond merely wanting free trade). Any understanding of why Britain sent an expeditionary force cannot be complete without reading Lord Palmerston's letter to the Chinese emperor and his instructions to the Elliot cousins (the joint plenipotentiaries) - both of which the article lacks. (Yes it says he told them to acquire the cession of an island but there's a heck of a lot more in his instructions than that!). And on the battles in the war section, it's one thing to say that 'battle of x was fought at this location on this date'. But it's another thing to present the series of events in a clear historical manner as to why they fought at a particular location on a certain date. I notice many of the sources and info in the war section are taken from the battle articles. Now there's nothing wrong those sources, but if you're only presenting info by summarising existing Wikipedia articles, you'll never get a complete understanding without actually reading the books on the subject. Again, this is a big topic and it's good to see constant improvement. But I think there's a while to go before it can be considered GA material IMO. Spellcast (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spellcast: thank you for your view. I must admit that your comment sheds light on some issues that did not previously occur to me. I would agree with you that the article is fragmented, and there are numerous short paragraphs that could be merged and/or expanded to provide further context. I would also agree that the article could be improved to provide more flow and a better historical narrative. I would especially like to see an article on this important event attain GA status. However, these issues are not particularly minor, and as such, I think it would take quite some time to address them. @SamHolt6: could you please provide some of your thoughts? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spellcast: @Sp33dyphil: Thank you both for your time. I especially want to thank Spellcast for your time an patience in regards to this article. This was my first time nominating an article for good quality, and I realize now my nomination was premature. As far as issues with the page are concerned, again I agree with both of you. My major concerns are,

Sourcing: As Spellcast pointed out, many of the battle descriptions are based off of sources cited by said battle's Wikipedia articles. I would like to find a more definitive source that would provide a timeline of the war, preferably a book. Recommendations welcome.
Neutrality: Most sources cited on the page cover the war from the British perspective, and I worry that there is not enough information on the Chinese during the war. For example, on of the most prevalent sources that I have access to is Bulletins and Other State Intelligence, which provides vital battlefield details but is also staunchly pro British. On the other hand, many modern Chinese sources relating to the war contain a good deal of blatant propaganda (the best that comes to mind was one that stated a 1825 banking crisis forced the bourgeois to squeeze the workers and advocate the plunder of foreigners), making my efforts to incorporate the Chinese prospective difficult. Qing commanders also had a habit of mis-reporting their results against the British.
Missing content: Some content vital to the article is missing. None of the debates in the British parliament, foreign commentary, or detailed military analysis of smaller battles are present in the article. I would like to see more emphasis on the Qing plan of defense. More content is needed in the ==Aftermath== and ==Legacy== sections. Legacy would be the most important of the two, as in modern China the war is given far more interest that it is in other countries.
Repetitive content: Some of the content I added in the ==Background== section may be repetitive. This was the first part of the article I worked on, and as such I may have overlooked a few things. Clarification by an editor who is not me should be encouraged.
Cleanup, maintenance: This is the first article that I have made significant contributions to. I am not well versed in some forms of citation, and in my zeal to add content I may make mistakes, like duplicating sources. I also think that the lede should be cleaned up and clarified in small ways as more information is added.
Images: Most of the images related to the war were produced by the British and some sources [1] point out that this could be seen as biased. I have recently added many new pictures to the page, and would like to know if these are acceptable.

With all that out of the way, I will say that I am immensely enjoying my time working on this article. We have a while to go before it can be classified as a good article, but I believe that it will make it there one day. Thank you again for your assistance Spellcast and Sp33dyphil. I look forward to putting more work into this page. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

As per the discussion above, this article is missing some content with regards to British justification for the war. In addition, the narrative with respect to the individual battles could be improved. I have not been able to check the print sources to verify some of the claims that are made. This is a major historical topic with significant political repercussions, and so hopefully there'd be more editors writing and reviewing the article. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]