Talk:Battle of Nalapani/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nev1 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the course of reviewing the article I discovered some issues with archaic phrasing which prompted me to compare it with the sources used. It would seem that there are some cases of copying from public domain sources with minimal paraphrasing. Now while there are no issues with copyright, I don't think the current inline citations are sufficient attribution to satisfy WP:Plagiarism.

I would recommend that this article's author reads Plagiarism. Of particular importance is the passage which reads.


 * "A practice preferred by some Wikipedia editors, when copying in public-domain, or free content, verbatim, is to paste in the content in one edit, with indication in the edit summary of the source of the material. If following this practice, immediately follow up with careful attribution, so that the new material can't be mistaken for your own wording.


 * Put the whole text (if small enough) in blockquotes or quotation marks.
 * For sections or whole articles, add an attribution template; if the text taken does not form the entire article, specifically mention the section requiring attribution.
 * In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article."

As can be seen in this version of the article before I began copy editing, the phrase "The division at Meerut was formed under Major-General Gillespie; and it was purposed to march directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley, he was supposed to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward" can be found in an almost identical form on page 13 of Fraser's Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himālā mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges.

Furthermore footnote 1 can be found on pages 86 and 87 of Prinsep as a footnote. True, inline citations are given each time, but it is not explicitly stated that the material is copied from the sources. These are just two examples, but it would explain some of the archaic phrasing in the article. It is an important issue and needs to be addressed before I progress further with the GA review. As explained on the article's talk page, since some text was copied from Anglo–Nepalese War I would recommend checking that article too. I got as far as the prelude section and the comments I made on that part of the article and the lead are below. I will place the article on hold for seven days so that the issue of attribution can be sorted. Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's present in the infobox, the lead itself doesn't doesn't mention the dates of the battle. This information could be added to the second sentence, or you could introduce them to the narrative by stating when the siege began and when it ended.
 * "The commander of the Nalapani fort was Captain Balbhadra Kunwar": this is a bit repetitious as "Nalapani fort" was mentioned at the end of the previous sentence. How about changing it to "The fort's garrison was commanded by Captain Balbhadra Nunwar"?
 * "The fort was eventually abandoned after its external water source had been cut off by the British. Balbhadra, along with about seventy remaining survivors, refusing to surrender, instead charged out and successfully hacked their way through the siege.": when I read the initial statement that the fort was abandoned the phrasing made me think the garrison surrendered to the British so perhaps this needs rephrasing. How about "After the British cut off the fort's external water supply, Balbhadra led the 70 surviving members of the garrison in a charge against the besieging force and fought their way out"?
 * "It set the tone for the rest of the Anglo-Nepalese war": in what way?
 * "This battle more than any other established the warrior reputation of the Gorkhalis": this is the first time the Gorkhalis are mentioned and as such it's not clear of their relevance.
 * There is some inconsistency in style of titles, for example both "Major General" and "Major-General" is used.
 * "...and marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley...": Which valley is being referred to? The Wikipedia article on Dehra Dun states it is a settlement, so if it's the name of a valley as well this needs to be clarified.
 * "as might be deemed expedient" seems like an unnecessary and awkwardly archaic phrase. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Update
It seems that while the article has undergone some copyediting, some of the phrasing is still close to the sources. For instance the following extract is from the article in its state as of 2 May 2012. "Once assembled, it marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley,[fn 1] the plan called for Gillespie to either move eastwards to recover Srinagar from the troops of Amar Singh Thapa, or westwards to gain the post of Nahan, the chief town of Sirmaur, where Ranjore Singh Thapa held the government for this father, Amar Singh. Once completed, he was to sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off Amar Singh from the rest, and thus to reduce him to terms.[1][5]"

It bears a strongly similarity to the following extract from Fraser (1820) "...[The third division] was purposed to move directly to the Deyrah Dhoon; and, having reduced the forts in that fertile valley, to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward, to recover Sreenugger from the troops of Ummr Sing Thappah; or to the westward, to gain the post of Nahn, the chief town of Sirmore, where Runjore Sing Thappah held the government for his father, Ummr Sing; and so sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off that chief from the rest, and thus reduce him to terms."

Similarly the Wikipedia article says "The fort of Nalapani was situated on an insulated hill, about 500–600 feet (150–180 m) high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep. The table-land on the top is about .75 miles (1.21 km) in length; and Kalanga was situated on the southern and highest extremity of this hill.[9] It was an irregular fortification following the form of the ground. At the time the British entered the Dun valley, the fortification was still incomplete and its wall was not fully raised. The British found the Nepalese busily engaged in heightening and strengthening the fort.[9]"

While Fraser says "The fort is situated on an insulated hill,about 5 or 600feet high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep.The table-land on the top may be about three quarters of a mile in length; and on the southern and highest extremity of this hill was Kalunga built. It was an irregular fortification, following the form of the ground, and at this time was imperfect, the wall not having been fully raised; but they were busily engaged in heightening and strengthening it."

The differences are cosmetic, the odd parenthetic statement has been removed and different forms of names used, but it substantially remains the same and the 1820 source down to the sentence structure. While this is not a copyright infringement because the source is long out of copyright, there is still an issue with attribution. Plagiarism states "the ... text [of a source in the public domain] can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details).""

While Fraser is still given as a reference, in the article's current format it's not clear that some parts are taken directly from the source; it seems only that Fraser is used as a source of information, rather than wording. As such, I do not feel the article can be promoted until the issue of attribution is resolved. It is slightly puzzling, as in the aftermath section Fraser is clearly quoted, but earlier in the article his work is used without making it clear that he is the author. If Fraser's work is to be substantially used, perhaps using quotes is the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the inline citations are in anway ambiguous, attested by the fact that you could pin point the original source of information. I will however try to resolve these issues. (Manoguru (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Dear Nev1, Thank you for pointing out your concerns, which seem quite valid. These are the old parts of the article which I didn't go back to editing much later on. Since the issues that you have raised are of war strategy and geography, I don't see how much I can actually change the wording without changing the meaning. Would it be alright if I simply put up more citations? or multiple references? As per the Plagiarism "In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article."