Talk:Battle of Hyderabad

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

History 208 Peer Review
Peer Review: Battle of Hyderabad I would like to start out by saying the structure of the article looks really good. The first thing I noticed was the headings, which make things easier for everyone involved. The lead paragraph has all the needed information that a reader needs to identify exactly what they are reading about. The only difference I would make on the structure, is to add another space between paragraphs so they are easier to tell apart and to keep them from looking like they are running into each other. A big block of words is kind of intimidating to read. You did a great job of staying on topic in the article. Everything seems well done and accurate. There are a couple spots that could maybe use another reference or two, it wouldn’t hurt to go through everything again and just look carefully at where you think another one could be added. You were very thorough in the article, going over a great deal of information and detail relevant to the topic. I think you did a really good job on the article. I can’t really point out much to change, and what I could see that needed to be changed I have told you. You did a great job, I am excited to see the final article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molenchuk (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer review 2 History 208 This is a well written and informative piece which does great justice to indicating the intricacies of British rule in India, which was far more complicated than simple imperial domination. Sir Charles Napier was an ambiguous character which is well alluded to in the article, pointing out that the British government was displeased with Napier's role against the Amirs. At the height of its rule in India, Britain had only about 1200 civil servants to administer some 350,000,000 people and couldn't have done it by simply using Napier's dubious methods. The article is well crafted and balanced. The account of the battle is vivid. The afterword is very much in context with the article. Some extra citation may be needed as some excerpts appear to be in need of clarification and additional sourcing just to add validation to the stated facts. The reference list seem a little incomplete with regards to the exact source of citations. They provide author and title but little identification of the exact publication. It may be difficult for another researcher to identify the sources used here in the format displayed. The information included is well defined and germane to the topic and does not wander with irrelevant information. Accuracy, as far as I can tell, is excellent. The tone of the piece is objective and impartial. All in all, it is a fascinating account of a little known but important event. Markbreth (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

a move to attack the left wing of the British troops
"The Scinde Horse and 3rd Bombay Light Cavalry made a move to attack the left wing of the British troops"

This phrase doesn't make sense. What meaning is intended?

JF42 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)