Talk:Tipu's Tiger/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Beginning read through. Will formally review this once points have been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * "in his summer palace" which palace? Please wikilink and mention where it was.	Seringapatam? ✅. No, Bangalore. AshLin (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink India House and the Victoria and Albert Museum. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please place V&A in brackets after Victoria and Albert Museum as later on you refer to it as V&A. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of further down in the article and image can you add (Tippoo Saib/Sultan) after Tipu's name in brackets as it was very commonly spelt Tippoo. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Background


 * "Tipu's Tiger was originally made for Tipu Sultan in the Kingdom of Mysore (today in the Indian state of Karnataka) around 1795. " - citation for date please. ✅ KellenT 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "close co-operation" -why the quote marks?
 * It's a quote, and best left as such. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since/if you have access to the Ord-Hume source, could you put in quotes in the references so that this is clear? Same for the other quotes. KellenT 18:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done the 2 mentioned, one to a 2 page range since I haven't brought Ord-Hume on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exact page added. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Description


 * 71.2 cm high and 172 cm . Convert measurements please to also show feet and inches. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In both the background and description section I notice a lot of "probably" and "may have". It is best to stick to fact as much as possible. If though you are certain it has some meaning keep it.
 * There is a lot of uncertainty as to the facts, which the article reflects. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "obviously male". Again why the quotation marks? If a hint of a Tiger penis can be seen, say so (LOL).
 * Again it's a quote. There are visible testicles, which are referred to later. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You say "The presence of French artisans and French army engineers within Tipu's court has led many historians to suggest there was French input into the mechanism of this automaton" . Shouldn't this have been said in the background where you vaguely say "some of the French craftsmen who visited Tipu's court probably contributed to the internal works of the tiger." I'd rather you asserted this in the background or just once in either section rather than twice.


 * History
 * ""These shrieks and growls were the constant plague of the student busy at work in the Library of the old India House, when the Leadenhall Street public, unremittingly, it appears, were bent on keeping up the performances of this barbarous machine. Luckily, a kind fate has deprived him of his handle, and stopped up, we are happy to think, some of his internal organs... and we do sincerely hope he will remain so, to be seen and admired, if necessary, but to be heard no more". Redundant quote as you've already said this above. Please consider removing this quote and just say it disturbed the students and to their relief it disappeared.
 * It's great quote with a lot of character; there are evident stylistic differences here. please remember it is not the job of the reviewer to impose his stylistic preferences. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly a stylistic preference. You've repeated yourself unnecessarily, having already explained much of this in the preceding sentence. Nevertheless, it isn't stopping this from being promoted... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please wikilink Fife House, India Museum, South Kensington, World War II, and Museum of Modern. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure these are the correct links? WWII should not be linked per MOS. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong Fife House; India Museum is unlikely to get an article & WWII doesn't need a lk so removed. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Tipu's Tiger is a notable example of early musical automata from India,[27] and also for the fact that it was especially constructed for him." Stranded short paragraph, would be best moved into a paragraph in the description/background. ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The replica itself was also associated with a historic Scottish event having been made in 1986 for 'The Enterprising Scot' exhibition, " Which historical event, seems vague? Or is the 'The Enterprising Scot' exhibition, the historical event referred to? In that case it is superfluous to say "associated with a historic Scottish event". ✅ AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Tipu's Tiger has not been the subject of an official repatriation request, presumably due to the ambiguity underlying Tipu's image in the eyes of Indians." What is meant by this? That there is a difference in opinion into whether he was liked or loathed? Seems a little awkward.
 * Not at all. He was loathed by Hindus and hero-worshipped by Muslims, not just then but even today. Will clarify. AshLin (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think a reason is needed for the lack of a repatriation request; I think India has made few if any from the UK. Tipu's divided reputation should be mentioned somehow though. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbolism
 * NCOs? in full please. ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink noblesse oblige. ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Tipu's Tiger is also notable as a literal image of a tiger killing a British Officer, " Hang on, didn't you say earlier it was stressed his exact identity was unknown and was referred to as European?
 * In this case, the son of a British officer, Hugh Munro was killed by a real tiger - hence the british considered it as a symbolism of British relevance, the theme appearring on British Staffordshire pottery. Earlier in the article, the term European is being used as an academic caution, though Tippoo only had issues to the point of conflict with the British. AshLin (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to "European". Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please wikilink Punch. ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kalter? Full name, link and occupation needed. e.g British archeologist Barratt Kalter. ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The collection of Western and Indian art by Tipu Sultan is seen as motivated by the need to display his wealth and legitimise his authority over his subjects who were predominantly Hindu and did not share his religion, viz. Islam. " Who sees it? Sources for this claim? ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the full width box would look better in a side box, like you see in the Clint Eastwood article. Also shouldn't it be quoted? ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Derivative works


 * Royal College of Art and Bill Reid, please wikilink.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC) ✅ AshLin (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, we were confused initially, the existing article called "Bill Reid" is not the same artist as the metal sculptor quoted in this article (most significantly, this one is still alive whilst the article is a BDP), however he's notable enough for the same artefact to have a full page illustration in Stronge's book and so inclusion here is justifiable. Fæ (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done. The remaining points may be answered by User:Johnbod who has the relevant references and has authored those parts. AshLin (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on holiday with a strange machine & can't respond or edit as fully as noemal for the moment. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Very interesting read indeed, fascinating subject. Seems to meet all of the requirements for GA. It appears the vast majority of my suggestions above have been met. It needs further research I feel if it is to pass FA but it appears to be a satisfactory GA. Congratulations to the contributors to this article who have produced a great result. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)