When you introduce a scholar or a historian for the first time in the text, you should use his or her full name. The Background section has one example: "it was estimated in 1930 that the Bengali diet was the least nutritious in the world.[31] Ó Gráda writes..." You should write his full name, Cormac Ó Gráda, before only using his last name later on in the article.
Japanese invasion of Burma section. "The Japanese campaign for Burma set off an immediate exodus of more than half of the one million Indians from Burma for India". I am wondering if "Indian" is the right term here, considering that the British Raj covered not only India, but also Pakistan and Bangladesh. Maybe Hindus?
1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement section. "In the case of the textiles industries that supplied cloth for the uniforms of the British military, for example, they charged "a very high price indeed" in domestic markets." The wording should be more fitting, without the "indeed" comment.
March 1942: Denial policies section. " John Herbert, governor of Bengal, issued a directive in late March 1942 immediately requiring stocks of paddy (unmilled rice) deemed surplus, and other food items, to be removed or destroyed in these districts,[99].[100]" At the end of the sentence, there is a comma followed by a full stop.
You need to format some references which use harvtext. It looks odd. Example: "Bayly & Harper (2005, p. 286) speculate that this reduced..." ("Civil unrest" section). "According to Padmanabhan (1973), the outbreak compared..." ("October 1942: Natural disasters"). Instead of Bayly & Harper (2005, p 286), use "Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper" and then use the reference at the end. Instead of "Padmanabhan (1973)", use "S.Y. Padmanabhan" and then use his source at the end of the sentence. And so on.
1942–43: Price chaos section. " In June, the Bengal government establish price controls for rice...". Established.
Social disruption section. "...food relief and medical rehabilitation were supplied too late, while medical facilities across the province were pathetically insufficient for the task at hand." Drop the word "pathetically".
The text uses either the term "per cent", "percent" or "%". It should be universal. You should make up your mind on which one of the three to use, and then stick with it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to names, the following is a list of those for which initial mention and subsequent use may not conform to the manual of style: Amery, Auchinleck, Bayly & Harper, Bhattacharya, Bowbrick, Chittaprosad, Collingham, Das, Greenough, Herbert, Law-Smith, Linlithgow, Maharatna, Mukerjee, Ó Gráda, Padmanabhan, Pinnell, Sen, Tauger, Wavell, and Winston Churchill. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to clean up the sentences with the removed harvtext, most notably the "1942–44: Refusal of imports" (the whole last paragraph has no source now) and "Causation" section (remove the harvtext).--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, but an article with this article's tangled history needs more time, and perhaps more input from others for promotion. Please let a week elapse from the date of nomination. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
((ping}If I may, I believe the correct process would be to send the article to WP:GAR. I have no objections if you wish to do so. I will even be willing to go through the process of doing it for you, since you say you are uninterested in being a part of the process. think that GAN however is a one-reviewer process. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)20:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I didn't realize that. I think you might want to do that yourself, and collect, perhaps, two more reviews, over a week. I believe it will help you in the future, demonstrating that at each step to an eventual FA, you have sought diverse opinion in an unhurried way. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was closed as listed by 3E1I5S8B9RF7, and although there was an edit made to reverse this on the article talk page by Fowler&fowler, it is not within their power to do so. One thing that might have been done was to request that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 reopen the review to consider other issues, but we seem to have gone past that point. This whole matter can still be taken to the GAN talk page, to see whether the GAN community wishes to sort this out in some other way. However, GAR is the standard way to call for a reassessment if the review isn't voluntarily reopened, and another community member is dissatisfied with the review in some way.
I have added the GA listing to the Article history (along with the PR from earlier this year). As Lingzhi2 has voluntarily opened a community good article reassessment, the GA will be subject to community review. Lingzhi2, if you check the WP:GAR page, you'll see that the thing to do is not to spam potential reviewers, but to notify the original GA reviewer and the various WikiProjects associated with the article that a reassessment has been opened. The goal of the GAR is to have members of the community come to a consensus as to whether the article meets the GA criteria by having them check/review the article, make suggestions of what to adjust/improve, and then give their opinion once the improvements are made as to whether the article meets all the criteria or not. It can be an involved process, and can take a while—because this is a community reassessment, only an uninvolved editor can close it after the community has been given adequate time to weigh in. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge the process by which User:Fowler&fowler rejects the GA outcome based solely on a hunch, since he did not read the article nor did he specify what exactly are the problems in it, if any. Nor is he willing to engage himself in the review. As such, in absence of any relevant points, I would argue his objection could be ignored, but I am willing to leave that to you. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not challenging your assessment. I am sure it is a good-faith assessment. You made some pro forma corrections—involving some punctuation, some grammar, and some WP conventions. And you left a telltale sign, by way of a remark, of someone largely unfamiliar with the historiography of British India. That is not a fault, only the kind of limitation, we all have, in various contexts, including and foremostly myself. That is why, in my view, more than one reviewer is needed for such an article, so that together, the individual limitations, are neutralized or counter-balanced. I may not have read the latest version of the article, but please consider that half a dozen pictures in the article are those I either found in the loft or at some obscure site or that I annotated. The article needs other good-faith assessments. I am merely trying to ensure for Lingzhi's sake that there not be another heartbreak in an eventual FAC (given the article's tangled history and extraordinary scope). Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hey @3E1I5S8B9RF7: I'm sitting in a parking lot typing on a cellphone so I can't type many words but there is a new discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1 and I have been meaning to invite you to comment there. I apologize for all this confusion etc. I think BlueMoonset mildly disapproved of me opening the new discussion too do sorry sorry. As for your response to F&f let's just let past be past. I know he didn't mean to step on your toes. So the new discussion is the place if you want to express any additional opinions about the article A million thanks for you time & trouble! ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)11:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]