The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Arrah[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

Siege of Arrah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article has recently completed a Good Article Review and it has been copy-edited by the GOCE. I believe this article meets the stated criteria and is at the level of other A-Class Military History articles. The article is free of any minor errors/typos/style issues, has no major omissions and does not go into unnecessary detail. I will be looking to nominate this article as a Featured Article Candidate in the near future so any suggestions for tweaks that are required at this stage would be extremely helpful. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

 Resolved Exemplo347 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved Exemplo347 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Unable to confirm - I was unable to confirm the copyright status of the original design. I have therefore removed the template that this image was part of. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are not. As a quick comment though, you should look at your citation style for newspapers - |title= is intended for article title, not newspaper name or date. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Citations fixed Thanks for your help. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Nice work with this, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Both Done All I could find were initials, despite extensive searches. I have added these. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I'm pretty sure it was George Lloyd, per Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E by Tony Jaques. This also says George: [1]. I will see if I can find anything about Littledale. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I believe it was Arthur Littledale: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with those! I've amended the article accordingly. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Excellent work. The Indian Mutiny is an interesting piece of history that we don't see here very often.

I thought about doing that but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is already linked in the lead of the article and again in the Infobox (and once more in a transcluded template) - I'm not sure if this would be over-linking? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include it if I was writing the article, but if you decide not to that's equally valid.
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not actionable Unfortunately none of the sources I found (including the first-hand accounts) give even a rough indication of the amount of people. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; it's an interesting detail, but if it's not in the sources there's nothing we can do.
Agreed, I would like to know just for reasons of my own curiosity. It was a big house apparently that I believe is still standing, so there may have been quite a lot of room. Never mind! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the immediate aftermath there doesn't appear to have been any wider impact, during the mutiny, of these events. In The Competition Wallah (1864) the author specifically notes that the events have been almost forgotten, not even commemorated by any memorial. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth adding something to the article about the relative obscurity these days?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section entitled "Legacy" - hopefully it makes sense. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: is it worth including the term "Indian Mutiny" in the article somewhere, perhaps in the opening like "took place during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Indian Mutiny)"? At least in Britain, "Indian Mutiny" is the most commonly recognised name for the conflict, and "Indian Rebellion of 1857" sounds like a title only Wikipedia would use (along the lines of "association football"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That makes sense to me! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Let me know what you think of the changes. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the changes and I believe this comfortably meets the A-class criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More