Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1

Bengal famine of 1943

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Bengal_famine_of_1943/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted Kept. Another month has passed and no new comments. It was passed originally as a Good Article and the editor who objected to it being passed as well as another editor that conducted one of the more thorough reviews here agree it now meets the criteria. This is probably as good as we get here at community reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Knock knock. reverted Legobot. I don't mind. I'm not angry. But I think it's out-of-process. I believe he also stated that he is currently uninterested in participating in the reviewing process. Which is also fine (and if he participated, that would be fine too). In short, this is a bit confused. Perhaps you folks should hash it out... OH PS If I may make a personal appeal to whoever reads this page: I hope you will not take up the issue of whether the reversion of Legobot was out-of-process. It was. But just pretend that never happened. Please treat this as a straightforward community GAR and review the article on its merits or lack thereof. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article embraces an extraordinary range of topics. It is about one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, the bewilderingly complex and multifarious roots of the tragedy, the unfolding of the tragedy, the attempts at ameliorating the tragedy, and the lessons and legacy of the tragedy. Scholars of extraordinary range, such as Amartya Sen have built their careers by analyzing the tragedy.
 * This article is starkly different from the great majority of articles that routinely achieve FA status on Wikipedia. If you are a reviewer here considering contributing a review and your review will be limited to grammar and punctuation, please consider doing something else on Wikipedia. If you are are a reviewer that is not willing or able to discuss in some detail why the article satisfies GA criteria 3 and 4, then don't bother to review the article. You very likely have nothing to offer in this reassessment. It may be that qualified reviewers will not appear immediately, but it will be worth the wait.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS In fact, I would urge reviewers to skip grammar and punctuation entirely. This article has been worked on for so long by so many competent editors (for example at three FACs) that grammar and punctuation is very likely a marginal issue.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PPS Lingzhi: Sorry I didn't realize it was out of process. I was, however, pointing out a greater inequity, the GA-fate of an article of such range and depth pivoting on the words of just one reviewer.  This is not one of those hurricane or movie articles, littering the FAs, with hackneyed templates and rudimentary sourcing, that anyone can write or review.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, a reassessment needs to look at all of the GA criteria, and the recommendation that people ignore any of them should itself be ignored. Everything should be on the table, and I think it would be helpful if Fowler&amp;fowler stopped giving directions to potential participants and sit back and allow the GAR process to run its course, the more because we want all of the criteria to be met, not just the two they happen to feel need work, though those naturally will need to be addressed. This is a GA reassessment, and FA criteria and reviews are irrelevant here. Finally, the GA criteria and process are the same for all articles, however structured; this may be a flaw in the process, but it does not change the fact that the GAN does of its design rely on a single reviewer, and if an editor feels the reviewer has gone astray or insufficiently deep, GAR is the (perhaps also flawed) backstop. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)

I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Fowler on this. The article has already been heavily copy edited during its FACs, and anyway it was never a major concern in those reviews, with a general view that it is quite well written. Would prefer if review efforts focused on more substantial matters. Ceoil  (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vami's review
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use ✅,, , ❌, , or , followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. — ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I: As a pre-reading note (to myself), this article is really big (164,134 bytes at time of writing), and "Broadness" will probably mean "what can safely be condensed, removed, or better yet moved to another article". – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * II: Many of my comments will be made with the intention of reducing the article's size, if this was not already made clear. Prepare to see more "axes" than you'd find in a lumberjack's lodge. I will also make comments on grammar and style, but they won't necessarily be my focus. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * Footnote A: I could probably park a car on Footnote A, it's so big. It should reduced to just the various figures and the sources espousing them. Apply this to all footenotes.
 * I trimmed about 110 words from footnote [A]. Alas, trimming it further would be counter-productive. There's a specific Wikipedia-related reason why that particular footnote (about mortality count) goes into detail: the mortality count is perhaps the biggest target of drive-by "improvement" by "helpful editors". It's also a target of talk page soap-boxing. Details help maintain article stability. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is good. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II. I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
 * I envision this: The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa. Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
 * I removed mention of the Orissa cyclone, and swapped "in" and "of". I'm afraid that your further suggestions would create an anachronism, since the famine did not occur in Bangladesh, since Bangladesh did not yet exist. Trust me, that wording would be reverted in FAC. I know because an excellent image that very clearly illustrates the effects of smallpox File:Smallpox child.jpg was the subject of ongoing consternation in an earlier FAC, until I finally gave in and removed it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Carry on. I hope I've been and will continue to be the most hassle-free of your reviewers. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  10:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am deeply grateful for your patience and courteous good will. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Footnotes C, D, & E: Keep recommendations for further reading to "Further reading"; axe these.
 * I deleted a sentence from [C] that suggests further reading, although it broke my heart to do so & did it under protest. I think giving useful information to readers is a primary goal... changed [D] to an sfn. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Footnote F: Convert this into a citation. The quotation could be kept by using the |ps= parameter in Template:sfn.
 * I think I did all these, or as much as I saw. If you see another that can be converted, please let me know. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Footnote G: The first sentence of this footnote is redundant and should be axed.
 * I think that footnote is used twice, and the first sentence is not redundant in the second use... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, carry on then. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Background

 * Footnote L: The harvardref at the end should be moved to the beginning of the note to match all prior footnotes citing the Famine Inquiry Commission.
 * done
 * Footnote O would be best located at three diverse economic and social groups: or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
 * ((ping|Vami_IV}} I moved it behind "particularly in Bengal,"... I think I'm caught up with your comments. Thank you for your attention ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Footnote R should either receive a reliable citation or be axed outright.
 * Sourced, tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the terms for the social classes should be more often utilized; it would reduce prose size and make it easier for the reader to know who's who.
 * I just now re-read the Background section and it's all quite clear to me. But perhaps that's because I am familiar with the content. What part were you referring to specifically? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; it is quite clear, and having read ahead now there's not really a lot of opportunity to use the Persian/Urdu terms. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Make the current thumbnail text for the image of the Sundarbans its alt-text; it's a bit long for something that is already obvious to whoever can see the image.
 * Shortened thumbnail text; just made previous thumbnail text the alt text ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The flooding of fallow fields Is this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?
 * added "annual" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-famine shocks and distress

 * one million Indians My understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
 * Yes, and the two biggest are Hindu and Muslim. But since AFAIK everybody from India ran for India, the collective term "Indians" is applicable ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * [...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent. This could be reduced; even as a food crisis began.
 * As a second prong, a "boat denial" policy How about The second prong?
 * Done
 * Footnote AN: This is generally not the place to bash a scholar's work.
 * rm "incorrectly" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's incorrect information, why should it stay? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To guard against the (admittedly unlikely, in this case, because it isn't attention-grabbing like the mortality figures) event that anyone tries to "correct" it by citing the erroneous figure. Actually, there are even bigger errors about other dates in other sources. Some errors left unmentioned in this article are "yuge" (as in, off by a year, screwing up the whole timeline, potentially confusing everyone who is paying any attention at all). So I guess if you really wanna delete this we can. I'll do it now. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Footnotes & references
Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the total number of footnotes has been reduced from 63 to 47, but I am starting to run out of opportunities to reduce them by converting to . ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ó Gráda's 2010 article Revisiting the Bengal Famine of 1943–44 is not cited.
 * Moved to "Further reading" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Government of India 1945 citation is broken.

Famine, disease, and the death toll
That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The figures for the death toll are not discussed here?
 * Well yeah, this section discusses what groups of people died, what regions had higher mortality rates, and what causes of death were most frequent... the totals are discussed in the very first footnote very early on.. I suppose we could get rid of that footnote and move that text to this section. .. Actually I dunno why I never thought of that; it seems reasonable... That would make the article a little longer.... and what would I do in the infobox to verify the figures? ... but it could be done. BTW, a LOT LOT LOT of this article has been trimmed away. If you want to see the whole poopdy scoopdy (including a couple errors that were caught by myself and others later), you can look at this ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * MMmmm, no, on second thought, the detailed details in the detailed footnote are too detailed. They don't fit with body text. I can try to add one summary sentence copied from the lede... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For once I'm not saying to outright obliterate a section of the article. Hell, you could economically use that first Footnote again with some sums of fatalities in summary via a named footnote, like Footnote G. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I slept on it and realized my suggestion was dumb since the article prose is supposed to expand on the lead content. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  08:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Go with the idea you responded to this inquiry, but maintain the first Footnote. Move the majority of its content out of it and into a paragraph under this section, and have that Footnote refer to this paragraph, or better yet link to it with the anchors/bookmarks you use elsewhere in the article.
 * To be honest, I still think "Dyson had this number, Greenough had that number" is too detailed for body text...I tried to add the total mortality, the footnote, and beef up the text.. actually, I've sorta kinda reordered that entire section. Please give it a look and let me know what you think. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Economic and political effects

 * Replace the period at the end of the the last sentence of the first paragraph with a colon or add a citation to it.
 * I tweaked it to make it clear that it referred to the table. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Causation
A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

GA(R) Progress
This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.

Comments by Lingzhi2

 * and all others.. I'm gonna try to stand back and avoid bothering/interrupting folks. I don't wanna be a nuisance... But I do wanna make one general statement about the prose size of the article. This topic is huge in more ways than one. It genuinely merits the prose size it is given... The size, at 72 kb, would put it somewhere around 165th from the top on a descending list of GA articles by prose size and somewhere around 80th (give or take a few) among FAs. (See this thread for a table of the top 20 or so..Oh and don't get confused by looking at the table for alt text size.. the prose size table is lower on the page I think). Moreover, there have been several comments made by FAC people that the "Size guideline" section of WP:TOOBIG might need to be revised or simply kinda mostly ignored, in many cases, when the topic merits the size... This one does. Amartya Sen's analysis of it marked a turning point in the research area of famines (as Fowler&fowler suggested), and of course it is an epochal catastrophe. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that this topic is a major topic, and that the usual rules of WP about article size not be applied stringently to it. The Famine Commission of 1945 said it all. See the quote box.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed. Ceoil  (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC.  I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA.  The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC.  May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks,  admiration, and congratulations to  for persevering with this article through thick and thin.  All the best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you muchly, Vami_IV, for such a diligent review. Ceoil  (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Next steps
Now that Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)