Talk:Mandalay (poem)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fish and karate (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Will review this over the the next 2-3 days, this is one of my favourite poems. Added template below. A ping for so he knows where to look. Fish +Karate 14:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated Fish +Karate 08:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on. I will action comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

 * Adequately summarizes article? ✅
 * Although if there are additions to the article this may need revisiting.
 * All facts in lead referenced in article somewhere? ✅
 * "The poem became his best-known" - that's one person's opinion quoted as fact. If it's staying in, it at least needs a modifier noting that this was "at the time", as the reference provided for this is a quote from 1890.  If you were to ask now what Kipling's best known poem was, it wouldn't be Mandalay.
 * Removed. ✅ Cheers


 * On that note, the reference used for the above claim ( also says the poem was from 1890. The article says it was written in 1890.  The lead says it was first published in 1892.  I can certainly imagine a long gap between writing and publication, but the Kipling Society ( says it was first published in the Scots Observer on 21st June 1890.  It was first collected in a book of Kipling's works in 1892.
 * Fixed, and used refs. ✅ Thanks.


 * "The protagonist is a Cockney working-class soldier, back in grey restrictive London, recalling the time he felt free and had a Burmese girlfriend, now unattainably far away."  The lead should summarise the article.  This is not in the body of the article, and so is also unreferenced. Don't remove it from the lead, it's interesting; instead expand on it in the body of the article and reference it.
 * This is based on Jack in the body; I've repeated the ref. ✅ Thanks


 * "was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, who objected however to its muddled geography" Again, where is this in the main article? The only mention of the bad geography in the main article is from a 2003 piece, by David Gilmour.  Not a contemporary of Kipling. As above, rather than remove it, it would be nice to be able to expand on this in the main article and provide an appropriate reference.
 * This was from Selth; I've extended the Selth coverage in the body and repeated the ref for clarity. ✅ Thanks

Well written

 * Is the prose clear and concise? ✅
 * "and was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, who objected however to its muddled geography" - that's a muddled sentence. How about "and was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, despite some objecting to its muddled geography"
 * reworded. ✅


 * Is the spelling and grammar correct? ✅


 * "During the Third Anglo-Burmese War of 1885 9,000" needs a comma between 1885 and 9,000
 * Fixed. If there are any more small formatting errors, feel free to fix 'em directly, it's easier. ✅ and will do - the tenses were muddled in the critical discussion so have harmonized them to past tense (said, wrote, commented), if you want them all to be active (says, writes, comments) then by all means change them but change them all, so it's consistently done.
 * That's fine either way.


 * "was written in March or April 1890" - "was written between March and April 1890" - for all we know, he started writing it on 28 March and finished on 3 April
 * Fixed. ✅ Ta


 * Does it comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? ✅
 * In the romanticism section, as the key word of Hamilton's view on the musicality of the lyrics is its aspect of 'minstrelsy' (which really should be pipe linked to Minstrel show) is the N-word essential? Suspect the reader will find it jarring.
 * Removed, and wikilinked. ✅ thanks

Verifiable with no original research

 * Does it contain a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline? ✅
 * Are all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? ✅


 * Does it contain no original research? ✅
 * That distinctive phrase "exotic erotica" in the lead is referenced to a 2017 Guardian article by Ian Jack but Jack doesn't use that phrasing (as quoted in the For subsection, he says "race, class, power, gender, the erotic, the exotic and what anthropologists and historians call “colonial desire”").  But that exact phrase does appear in another 2017 article about Mandalay, an interview with Andrew Selth written slightly earlier that year, by Michael Wesley for New Mandala.  I think this needs to be referenced, and  you may wish to consider using Wesley's piece as a source to expand some other bits of the article too, it's got some good stuff about the poem.
 * Wesley is already used and cited in other parts of the article, including right by that phrase in the body. Have repeated the ref by the phrase in the lead.
 * Aha, I was looking for the original article, not the reprint, the ANU link you're using for Wesley says at the bottom "This article is was first published in New Mandala". Perhaps use the original source and not the reprint?  Apologies, though.
 * Oh I see. Updated citation to the New Mandala URL and publisher.


 * Does it contain copyright violations or plagiarism? ✅
 * Checked with references manually, and used the earwig tool. Quotes are suitably quoted and attributed. No issues found other than the one just above.

Broad in its coverage

 * Does it address the main aspects of the topic? ✅
 * One of the most distinctive things about the poem is the 'voice' it's written in, using Cockney slang and so on, the article doesn't really mention this. ✅ Cheers
 * The poem's "voice" is discussed in #A common touch and cited to Jack.


 * There's nothing in the body of the article about how the poem was released (ie, published in the Scotsman in 1890, and then first collected in Barrack Room Ballads in 1892. There's a sentence in the lead but this isn't expanding on anything in the main article.  No mention of which of Kipling's collections included the poem (there's a list here)   ✅ Cheers
 * Done.


 * Does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)? ✅

Neutral

 * Does it represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each? ✅
 * No issues

Stable

 * Does the article change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? ✅
 * No issues

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

 * Is media tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? ✅
 * All images in the article (bar one) are pre-1923 and are tagged appropriately. The other one is cc-by-sa-3.0, also fine.


 * Is media relevant to the topic, with suitable captions? ✅
 * That palm tree image is pointless. Also not sure about the relevance of the image of a music hall.  It's like having a picture of a boot (also mentioned in the poem) and a radio (also a way the poem has been presented publicly).  Perhaps remove those and add an image of Kipling?  There's quite a few to choose from at Commons:Category:Rudyard_Kipling. Rest seem relevant.
 * Removed those images and added one of Kipling at that age. ✅ thanks

Observations
All concerns met, thank you for responding so promptly. I am happy to pass this article as a Good Article. Fish +Karate 12:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the careful and thorough review, which has helped to sharpen up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)