Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can I please ask to keep this review open if there are no big problems to speedily decline? I'll try to address the problems raised. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

1) Well written

• The article is in need of a copy-edit. Some examples of problems are as follows:
  • "Dyer was convinced that a major insurrection was going on. Thus he banned all meetings. unaware of ban 15,000 to 20,000 people had assembled (which included women, senior citizens and children) at Jallianwala Bagh on Baisakhi(a Sikh festival)"
    • It doesn't read well, it implies that the 15-20k people were all women, children and seniors -- that isn't the case, spaces missing, description for Baisakhi in parenthesis while a wikilink would be better.
  • "British officials in India, ever since the Rebellion of 1857, lived in fear of native conspiracies and revolts; they warned each other the natives were most suspicious when they seemed superficially innocent."
    • A rather cumbersome way to phrase this.
  • Other problems include punctuation.

• The lede is not a summary of the article, instead it provides information that isn't present within the body of the article.
  • "Dyer was convinced that a major insurrection was going on. Thus he banned all meetings."
    • The body of the article says O'Dwyer was the one that believed a revolt was in the making
  • "At Jalliawalla Bagh out of the 1,302 men, women and children slaughtered, 799 (61%) were Sikhs.[3]"
    • A factoid left hanging as it's not explained anywhere in the article.
  • The fatality and wounded counts do not match between the lede, infobox, and the body of the article.
    • The lede actually conflicts with itself, providing three numbers, two of which are explained, but the third finds no mention anywhere. The third number is also in conflict with the infobox.

2) Factually accurate / verifiable

• Why is this site considered a reliable source, especially given what they say on the home page?
• "Revolt was in the air, many Army officers believed, and they prepared for the worst. In Amritsar, more than 15,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly during the next few days. Michael O'Dwyer is said to have believed that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy for a coordinated revolt around May, at a time when British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer. The Amritsar massacre, as well as responses preceding and succeeding it, contrary to being an isolated incident, was the end result of a concerted plan of response from the Punjab administration to suppress such a conspiracy.[12] "
  • The source (page 67) provides a much more nuanced interpretation of this and doesn't support some of what's included above.
• Large swathes of unreferenced text
  • "The Legal and Home Members...was cancelled on 29 March 1920."
  • "The Government tried to suppress...December 1919."
  • "A trust was founded in...added to the site."

3) Scope and coverage

• Large parts of the lead up and after effects are not covered.
  • Some of the references included in the article are quite extensive and should be used as a guide for the topics
• Rabindranath Tagore's reaction
  • While Tagore's reaction is notable, the amount of coverage given to it and the associated neglect of pretty much anyone else's falls short of WP:NPOV

4) Neutral, due weight

• The Tagore example from above.
• Excess weight given to O'Dwyer's assassination, there are two other more appropriate articles to cover that in, not here

5) Stability

• Doesn't appear to have any issues out of the ordinary.

6) Image use

• Seems reasonable; however, all images need suitable captions and proper positioning along with the relevant text.

At this point the article fails four of the six listed criteria, and easily fixable against one. I don't believe it's a fix that can be achieved in a hold of a week or two. I haven't done an exhaustive review, just a first cut and I expect the examples I've used are generally indicative of the article. Please let me know if something can be worked out in the next week or two. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for this. Keep it open for 1 week and I'll do my best :) →TSU ^tp* 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: Failed, per this note as an addendum to earlier hold request. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)