Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Nalapani/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC).

Battle of Nalapani

 * Nominator(s): Manoguru (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed the GA, and I cannot think of anything more to contribute to the article. Manoguru (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. My first concern is referencing. You've got two "incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" templates. Other than referenced quotations, it's not immediately clear to me what text is directly incorporated from public domain sources. At the FA level, I'm rather reticent to okay an article with those templates; citing public domain text is obviously fine, but just using their wording, not so much. I'm not sure why that Shiva Shankar website is a reliable source, but it's not formatted correctly in any case.  And I'm concerned that this isn't a comprehensive review of the literature.  The article leans rather heavily on Fraser and Princep.  Are there more modern examinations of this conflict?  Military scholarship has evolved somewhat since 1825.  I only gave the text a cursory read, but it looks like there may be some prose issues as well.  I caught an instance of "it should be noted" in one of the footnotes. In the main body, you refer to Gorkhalis a great deal (and never link the term).  The Wikipedia article is at Gurkhas, and I wonder if that's a symptom of the dated sources that underlie the article.  Time permitting, I'll make a closer reading later. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Good work so far with this article, but it needs some improvements before it can be granted FA status. Specifically, I think it would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, perhaps by a volunteer at WP:GOCE. Some of the images need work in terms of licensing: File:Gurkha_Commander_Nepal_War.jpg needs a tag indicating its status in the US, while File:Rollo_Gillespie.jpg is a bit confused - the source link is dead, the two licensing tags present contradict each other, and it's not clear whether either is correct. I agree with most of Squeamish's points about sourcing, and I also think that some of the phrasing is not as neutral as it should be, for example "To the dismay of the garrison" or "Despite their stubborn resistance with gunfire and stones, the few people that remained in the fort became desperate and could not hold on anymore". You might consider sending this through the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process before trying FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly OK, but some of the image summaries will need more information for their PD-claim: Oops, just realized Nikkimaria already looked at the images - sorry. Anyway, maybe the additional look is helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Gurkha_Commander_Nepal_War.jpg - i have cleaned up the summary a bit and added an active archive link. However, the image needs some more information to verify the PD-old claim: When was it published? How old is it? Who is the author? If some details can't be ascertained, atleast some evidence needs to be given or the image fails our image use policies.
 * File:Kalunga_fort_close_up.png - PD-claim looks OK, but you should add some bibliographical info for "A memoir of Major-General Sir R.R. Gillespie" - When was the used edition published? Who is the publisher? Does it have OCLC or ISBN-number?
 * File:Rollo_Gillespie.jpg - PD-claim is OK. The image has been updated with a better (imo) version, i have updated the image summary accordingly.
 * Comment: G'day. Manoguru, I had a go at copy editing the article. Not sure if it addresses any of the concerns above, but if you can please make sure you are happy with my changes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Article and review appear to have been moribund for the past two weeks so I'll be archiving this shortly. If you'd like to bring this back to FAC at some stage, pls take on board the comments raised in this review and remember to wait a minimum two weeks after the archiving before renominating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.