Talk:Battle of Nalapani/GA3

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have read the previous failed nomination from last year and am aware of the issues raised there. I think that as it stands, although the article clearly draws heavily from public domain sources, this is not obvious from the text, which has been well edited and improved and most importantly this reliance has been clearly acknowledged throughout the article.

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "resources spent to capture the small petty fort" - "petty" is clumsy phrasing, consider removing it.
 * Link "Pyrrhic victory"
 * " The battle set the tone for the rest of the Anglo-Nepalese War" - in what way?
 * Link "Magar soldiers" to Magar people.
 * Hi, I'm not a regular editor of this article, but I did some copy editing awhile back and saw that this review hadn't been responded to, so I made an attempt to deal with these issues. Please let me know if my changes have addressed these points. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pleasantly surprised that there actually is an article on Magar people. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. (Manoguru (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC))
 * This all looks good now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * At the start of the first paragraph of Background there should be a very short piece - two sentences - on why the British wanted to invade. For example it could say something like "In 1814 the long-standing dispute over the border between British India and the Kingdom of Nepal descended into open war. The British East India Company sought to invade Nepal to secure the border and force the Nepali government to open trading routes to Tibet." (obviously this should be edited by someone who understands the circumstances in more detail). This will give the article considerably more context.
 * Good point, I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to deal with this, but I will post on the nominator's talkpage and see if they can address this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this suggestion. I have made the necessary changes, and I must say that the article reads better. (Manoguru (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC))
 * It does indeed, although you need to source it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail: