Wikipedia:Peer review/Third Anglo-Maratha War/archive1

Third Anglo-Maratha War

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to areas of improvement for getting this article listed as a GA. Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Looks pretty good to me. I have a few style comments:

there are a few disambig links that should be fixed: [1]
one external link appears to be dead: [2]
the capitalisation of the titles in the References section should be in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles
per Wikipedia:MOS#Dates ordinal suffixes with dates
the peer review script indicates that there are some contractions in the article such as "weren't". Generally contractions shouldn't be used unless they are direct quotes;
the References should be sorted into alphabetical order by author's surname;
there is an inconsistent date format in the article. For instance, "January 1, 1818", or "1st of January 1818" in the Flight of the Peshwa section. Consistency is the key, but you need to bear in mind that ordinal suffixes shouldn't be used, so I suggest "January 1, 1818";
"suzerainty" should be linked, as it is a word that some readers might not understand;
the final part of the End of the war and its effects section should have a citation;
do you have any casualty figures? If so, they should probably be added to the infobox;
the End of the war and its effects section is very large, could you perhaps split the paragraph a bit?
the time format is not consistent with the WP:MOS#Times, for instance in the Subjugation of Holkar section, "nine AM" should be "9:00 am" (making sure to include the non breaking space). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magicpiano

Looks like a good start. Things to work on:

Assume your reader is a 12-year-old American child with a modern atlas. Does this person know who Shivaji (mentioned in first paragraph without explanation) is?
I think you need at least a paragraph describing in a little more detail the history of the Marathas (and specifically their relations with the British) in the 18th century. Presumably there are roots of conflict that are deeper than the proximate casus belli mentioned? (At one point you mention the war as "mopping up" after the second war, but give little background on the nature and course of that war.)
The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.
This period in Indian history uses terminology that will be unfamiliar to casual readers from other cultures. Brief clauses explaining for example that the Peshwa was the nominal ruler of the empire, and what a "resident" is are necessary; do not assume that readers will click through to a linked page for these and other terms, like Pindari and Nizam (neither of which is explained or linked at first mention).
You use "third anglo-maratha war" several times in the article; this is unnecessary, we already know the name of the war. (If you have to distinguish from other wars, use a phrase like "this war" instead of "the war".)
A war (or campaign) article should provide context for specific actions, and (in my opinion) be short on battle details, unless strategy or larger outcomes hinge on those details. Many campaigns consist of movements with few or no major battles; this is what you need to tell about here. The section "Subjugation of Holkar" is lacking in context; if I want a detailed description of the battle, I'll click through to the battle; tell me where Holkar is and why, and how and why the British came to target him and bring him to battle. I have no sense of where British and Maratha forces were concentrated to begin their campaigns, and where they went, or were intending to go when battles were engaged.
In a good way, many or most of the Indian leaders are named. Less so with the British, who are often faceless and nameless. Who led the forces against the Pindaris?
The British are sometimes referred to as "English".
In "The Pindaris" you say that Shinde and Holkar lost their territories in the second war. In the next paragraph you say that Shinde and Holkar are sheltering the Pindaris in their territory. Something is not right with this...
You never actually link in text the first two wars.
Were there internal disagreements among the Marathas that are important to mention? the British?
I don't know how strong your English is; the article definitely needs thorough copyediting.

--Magic♪piano 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009

A lot of work's clearly gone into this.
The Khadki battleground is described, but the article could usefully tell the reader more about the general terrain of the campaign - is the region mountainous, desert, jungle etc.?
You mention that there were infantry, cavalry and guns, and that the British had higher technology, but the article might usefully explain a little bit more about what the armies were equipped with or what that higher technology was.
The British East India company is mentioned in the infobox, but in the prelude you talk about the British Empire - I think the two were different entities?
I'd echo the recommendations above for getting some help with the copyediting - a lot of the language being used isn't quite right and detracts from the considerable research that's gone into the article.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRFasulo

I think you have already received enough suggestions, so I won't burden you with many more. I really looked at the article as I am fascinated by the British Raj. Then I saw the phrase:

"...the armies lost battles and got slaughtered when a(<-delete) they encountered a river, unable to discover fjords or locate boats."

I wondered about that. I suggest that it needs a bit more explanation. Perhaps dates and who the enemy was. Not too much though, as the article isn't about that. On the other hand, it might be better to just delete that phrase completely.

You also use the term "fjords." Is that appropriate to India? I though that term was just applied in Scandinavia?

My major criticism, and I didn't look to see if this was already suggested, is that your Reference section is not alphabetized by author. This makes the references difficult to find. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert's Recommendations

I've made all of the recommended changes except:

do you have any casualty figures? If so, they should probably be added to the infobox;

Separate numbers for the various battles of the war are available but I thought adding them to obtain a casualty number for the war might amount to OR. I will keep looking for a source that gives a direct total number for the entire war. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magicpiano's Recommendations

I've made all the recommended changes except the following two items:

The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.
A war (or campaign) article should provide context for specific actions, and (in my opinion) be short on battle details, unless strategy or larger outcomes hinge on those details. Many campaigns consist of movements with few or no major battles; this is what you need to tell about here. The section "Subjugation of Holkar" is lacking in context; if I want a detailed description of the battle, I'll click through to the battle; tell me where Holkar is and why, and how and why the British came to target him and bring him to battle. I have no sense of where British and Maratha forces were concentrated to begin their campaigns, and where they went, or were intending to go when battles were engaged.

I'm currently working on these and will continue looking for a map. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The background material is significantly improved, I have a much better sense of who the players are; good work. For maps, if there are not period campaign maps to be found, you may have to make your own, using a more general roughly-period map either as a background, or something from which to trace boundary lines on a more schematic map. This can be done using Inkscape; see Battle of Ridgefield and Battle of The Cedars for maps I made using these techniques. Magic♪piano 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided the context for the Holkar sub-section and locations/headquarters of all other Maratha leaders. The only item pending now is:

The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.

I will look at Inkscape and make the maps over the next week or two.

Hchc2009's recommendations

The geography was vast - I've made some changes and added terrain information for each Maratha leader's territory separately at the beginning of this section Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Commencement

That makes it clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find too much information on the technology of the weapons of Marathas but I found some saying what they didn't have and that they mostly imported artillery. I've made those changes here -- Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Prelude

That made it clearer for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature changes - The British East India company is now mentioned consistently, references to the British Empire are taken off. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One subtlety that is often glossed over in histories of 18th century India is that some of the forces used were in fact British Army regiments; they were certainly present in some Indian conflicts of that time. I don't know if this is true of this conflict; I'd suspect it to be so. This would mean that the UK (and not just the BEIC) was also a participant in the war at some level. (P.S. the commanders in the infobox need fixing. I don't think Warren Hastings (d. 1818 in England) was involved; perhaps a different Hastings?) Magic♪piano 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused about the whole UK-EIC-English-British nomenclature because I've found that some sources even refer to them as "English". To my knowledge using "English" is incorrect. Buy maybe it has to do with the history of the UK at that time? It looks like it was the different Hastings you've linked to. I will make that change. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"English" is definitely deprecated usage, at least for events since 1707. As far as EIC vs. UK, my understanding is at best incomplete, but goes like this. Before the passage of the India Act 1784 the EIC operated nominally independently of UK policy, but the need for Crown troops and collateral effects of company actions on diplomacy led to that act, which effectively put the government in control of the company, which continued to exist (until the 1857 rebellion, I guess). I don't know if or when the distinction between Crown and company troops was erased; it was certainly not at the time of Cornwallis in the 1790s, when the difference (over relative rank and pay between the two) was one of the problems he left behind. I'd be surprised if the large number of troops Hastings amassed did not include Crown or former Crown troops (this was peacetime in Europe, just after Napoleon). It should at some point be clear that such troops were present in India; details are of course for campaign or battle articles. Magic♪piano 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRFasulo's recommendations

Fixed fjords, provided more explanation why the armies got slaughtered.
Arranged references in alphabetical order. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa

I would like to see a little information about the Bombay Council and the Calcutta Council. What were these councils, and why were they at odds with each other?
You mention the "foresight and persistence" of Warren Hastings but we are not told what exactly he did. Could you provide some details? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state the Peshwa fled until January 1, but the battle was also on January 1 so that cannot be correct. Please check your sources and fix the date. I have marked the spot with a {{contradiction-inline}} tag.
What do the words "inam" and "watan" mean? You do not define them, and we have no articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the material in the last three paragraphs appears to have been lifted directly from the sources. This is of course a copyright violation. Please re-work this material and put it in your own words. The last paragraph appears to have been lifted directly from MacDonald. And some in the first has come directly from Hunter and some from Black. I have removed the entire last section and it will all have to be re-worked, so sorry.
Copy edits are now completed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last three paragraphs have been rephrased or removed. Explanation for Watan and Inam has beeen provided in the form of footnotes. I will work on the remaining (first 3) bullet items over the next few days. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

In the 18th century were the places called Bombay, Chennai, calcutta. Had the British taken them over and renamed them yet?
Article talks about Maharashtra as though it existed in the old days
Page format in the footnotes were inconsistent wrt p and pp, and also things like 216-7 and 226-227. Also some of them need to be switched to ndashes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confirm the names Bombay Council, Calcultta Council and administrative units such as Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency are mentioned for our time period of interest (1817-1819).
Maharashtra is mentioned independently twice - I will change that to Maratha Empire or something more appropriate. It is mentioned in conjunction with phrases like "modern state of Maharashtra" in 1 or 2 more places which doesn't seem inaccurate.
Will fix the p/pp, numbering and dashes. Any links/help on how to run scripts to fix dashes? Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used this script on the dashes. Sometimes it misses a few, but it usually gets most of them. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]