Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bengal famine of 1943/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017.

Bengal famine of 1943

 * Nominator(s):  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It is no understatement to say that this famine is paradigmatic in the academic literature – it is hugely important in all academic discussions of the causes of famine. No one is really certain how many innocent Indian peasants died, but the most recent and authoritative estimate (2.1 million deaths) is more than double the total combined military and civilians WWII deaths of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. No one agrees on what caused it – some blame a cyclone and floods, fungal infestation, the fall of Burma, wartime inflation and British wartime priorities, or Winston Churchill personally. The article is large; it merits the size because it has been perhaps the most discussed famine of all time in relevant literature. Thank you for your time and trouble. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator note: This article gathered two Opposes at MILHIST A-review. I consider both Opposes non-actionable, so requested the review be closed. I do appreciate everyone's time & trouble. Please do let this article have its run at FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from your edits, the article is stable. I think you have expressed yourself clearly and at length. I would hope you'll take a breather and let many other people have the freedom to express themselves. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments at the A-class review. As this article on a high profile and contentious topic was recently re-written in user space without this being advertised on its talk page, and concerns have since been raised about it there, I don't think that FA criterion 1e is met at present. As I noted in the A-class review, I'd suggest a peer review as an initial step. A GA review may also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. If you look in the talk page history, the article rewrite was advertised repeatedly. I can find diffs if you like...As I noted above, I consider your Oppose non-actionable. As for stability, we have had IP editors stepping on it (but that has been dealt with), and we have a single editor who has very strong opinions about images.. opinions I often disagree with. However, these imaging issues can be worked out step by step during FAC. We are already in the process of doing so. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my error: I should have checked the talk page history myself. Nevertheless, the article cannot be considered stable given the talk page concerns. I note also that you didn't exactly invite collaboration on the new version (eg,  in which editors are told that they can only view and comment on the new version) Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the standard operating procedure. As for inviting collaboration, I seriously invited at least six or seven editors (including and  among several others) via either their talk page or via email. NO ONE absolutely NO ONE agreed, and among all those that I asked, MOST never even responded. You have accidentally brought up the one problem I admit: this issue is deep. It's deep, deep, deep. And in addition to being deep, it's a honeytrap for several kinds of POV editors. There are academic POVs, as scholars argue between FAD and FEE as primary cause (explained in article). There are HUGE political POVs, as  hardcore Indian nationalists (or other folks who just hate Winston Churchill) would shout "It's Britain! It's Churchill! Churchill was evil! Britain was uncaring!", while hardcore British apologists would be adamant that it was not caused by or even greatly augmented by wartime events or considerations. (The FAD POV strongly overlaps/ties with British apology; the FEE position overlaps with Imperial blame, but it is possible to be FAD without pro-British and/or FEE without anti-British). The question is: Are we at Wikipedia capable of handling an article this deep and this controversial?  Lingzhi  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment::* By your own accounting it took you a year and a half working off Wiki, including one month of round the clock immersion, to complete this article. The article has nearly 15,000 words, nearly 400 citations, and nearly 150 works cited.  The latter two are more numerous than those in my PhD thesis of many summers ago.  It took my professors, who were all experts in the field, three months to read through, and I'm still not sure they did read through.  You have thus far had no such encumbrances.  In one dramatic edit of less than three weeks ago, you were able to paste, review, accept and publish your article.   No one is tampering with your version, even if they suspect it is has a tad more than 0.0 POV.  Don't you think it is unfair that after allowing yourself 18 months of undisturbed editing, you are unwilling to grant reviewers a few months for checking the details of your edits, mulling over their implications, and ensuring their consonance with the prevalent thinking in the field, all unharassed by exhortations to be actionable?  I know that it probably doesn't feel good to have your article fail the A-rating.  But upping the ante by bringing it to FAC doesn't help anyone or anything, the least of all your own article.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS As for collaboration, you did send me email a year ago, saying only that it would be many months before the article would be ready, and that you will then take it to PR first and then FAC, and that you would be honored if I commented. I was traveling.  I replied several months later saying I'd be happy to when it is ready.  And that was that.  I have the emails.  Apparently, you are now balking at taking it to PR first.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I feel precisely the opposite: FAc is the only, really the only, place where POV editors must hold themselves in check, and where many many very experienced and non-POV editors are guaranteed to have eyes on the article. I'm perfectly OK with a three-month-long FAC. I invite it. I am not OK with non-FAC options. Forex, Nick-D's MILHIST Oppose essentially opined that MILHIST was not equipped to handle the article, which needs a review from broader focus: "...these issues are all highly contested, and there's a risk that military history-focused reviewers will in effect endorse this version of the article despite not having the background knowledge to assess how well it balances the competing arguments." I took his implied advice and stepped away from MILHIST. Both Peer review and GA are (or were) scantily manned and by design not as deep as FAC. This is the place. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one was breathing down your neck when you were writing the article. You relished the peace and quiet.  It is the same with other Wikipedia editors.  They like to check the details, and do their bits of research, and form their opinion of an article, without having objections thrown in their faces.  The PR was what you had mentioned in the email.  I am suggesting that the article sit by itself outside of any review process for several months, allowing potential editors to add their reliably sourced edits or remove yours if they are unreliably sourced, in the same way that you replaced theirs (outside of a formal review process).  Any article that is thrust upon the Wikipedia readership in one edit, all 15,000 words of it, needs to be in editorially stable, before it can be reviewed.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any doubt that you think it is stable. Indeed you have thought it stable from the very moment of its birth announcement at 11:54 on 8 April 2017, for it was barely three minutes later that you promoted it from C-class to B-class, across six Wikiprojects in a remarkable piece of Wiki multi-tasking, and another three minutes later that you submitted it for a Milhist A-class review.  You then nominated it at FAC even before the failed Milhist review had closed. In it entire life on this planet, your article has experienced only six minutes outside of a review setting.  It seems to me that you are attempting to protect the POV that you have so painstakingly introduced and that you will aggressively battle anyone who dares question it.  In light of this, I have no choice but to Oppose this article per violation of FA crterion 1 (e).  I am suggesting, though, as our pleasant interaction at the article's talk page demonstrates, that you allow the article to be edited in the normal way,  unfettered by a review process, and in a few months all the kinks will be ironed out.  It is your call.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to coordinators These are the same two editors from MILHIST A-review who followed me over here. As for 1e, I propose that we let this FAC run and see what happens. Since IP raiders are prohibited, all that could be left are deliberate POV warriors, and they have not as yet made an appearance. The article is stable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just now noticed you accused me of POV editing. That's kinda sad.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone in the world has a POV, my friend, even the great Caesar did when he fell, even I and you and all of us who fell down then ... Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose (sorry) I agree that this fails 1(e). It was inevitable that a radical re-write would attract the attention of earlier editors and I don't like the way their comments have been responded to. Having submitted the article for the A-review, that should have been followed through to a successful conclusion. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, allow time for the new content to bed in and let the editors who are currently locked out make their suggestions. This has turned into a right mess. If I were  still a coordinator, I would feel most uncomfortable promoting this. A clean renomination in a few months, is my advice. Graham Beards (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I made my first edit in the article on 21 April 2017.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the nom points out, this is an important topic with a great deal written about it in the academic literature and, simultaneously, it is a contentious topic with many different points of view on causes, mortalities, economic effects and what have you. I understand and appreciate that the nominator has put a lot of effort into rewriting the article but, given that the article has been written essentially by one editor, it is impossible for it to have been evaluated for the quality of research put into it, the quality of the citations, and, most importantly, its balance in less than a month. What we need is far slower approach. Give other editors the time and space to evaluate and edit the article. Then, after a few months, put it up for peer review or even take it straight to FA if there is general agreement that the article is ready. With the three editors who are working on it (Ceoil, Lingzhi and Fowler), the odds are we're going to see a quality article that Wikipedia will be proud to feature. But, right now, this is way too early. (Fails 1(e) and it is unclear whether it passes 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not take it through the GA process first? It is slow I know, but perhaps approaching some GA reviewers for an early review might help? Then with GA ribbons, do a DYK which may attract 1000s or possibly 10,000s of views (hopefully a few editors too). After DYK, do an FA nom? That will give F&f, RP and others some time to collaborate with you on anything they or you discover. If you don't wish to do GA+DYK, still a wait may be prudent. Leave alone FA noms, I prefer to see GA noms to be stable for a few weeks, both on the talk page and the live article. For an FA nom, even more. My guess is that you would likely earn the FA ribbon for this article in due course. But, for now, any reasons to avoid the waiting period and fast track this to FA? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- I'm going to close the review per this request. As to next steps, FTR, I felt that MilHist ACR was a reasonable venue for a community review because it was a wartime event, and MilHist is pretty liberal about what is acceptable at ACR and never discourages non-MilHist members from reviewing there, but we're clearly beyond that now. I think a "bedding-down" period followed by PR, as indicted by a couple of reviewers above, would be the way to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.