This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Nalapani article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Nalapani has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: WikiCopter ( talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
These appear to have been addressed a long time ago; reviewer hasn't edited in a month though so new one is needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This article contains some content identical to the Anglo–Nepalese War article as demonstrated here. As some of the material was added to the war article in November and then the battle article in January byt the same editor ( Manoguru), it would seem part of this article was copied from the Anglo–Nepalese War. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I am noting that the history of the text can be found here Nev1 ( talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nev1 ( talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
In the course of reviewing the article I discovered some issues with archaic phrasing which prompted me to compare it with the sources used. It would seem that there are some cases of copying from public domain sources with minimal paraphrasing. Now while there are no issues with copyright, I don't think the current inline citations are sufficient attribution to satisfy WP:Plagiarism.
I would recommend that this article's author reads Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Of particular importance is the passage which reads.
As can be seen in this version of the article before I began copy editing, the phrase "The division at Meerut was formed under Major-General Gillespie; and it was purposed to march directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley, he was supposed to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward" can be found in an almost identical form on page 13 of Fraser's Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himālā mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges.
Furthermore footnote 1 can be found on pages 86 and 87 of Prinsep as a footnote. True, inline citations are given each time, but it is not explicitly stated that the material is copied from the sources. These are just two examples, but it would explain some of the archaic phrasing in the article. It is an important issue and needs to be addressed before I progress further with the GA review. As explained on the article's talk page, since some text was copied from Anglo–Nepalese War I would recommend checking that article too. I got as far as the prelude section and the comments I made on that part of the article and the lead are below. I will place the article on hold for seven days so that the issue of attribution can be sorted. Nev1 ( talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that while the article has undergone some copyediting, some of the phrasing is still close to the sources. For instance the following extract is from the article in its state as of 2 May 2012.
Once assembled, it marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley,[fn 1] the plan called for Gillespie to either move eastwards to recover Srinagar from the troops of Amar Singh Thapa, or westwards to gain the post of Nahan, the chief town of Sirmaur, where Ranjore Singh Thapa held the government for this father, Amar Singh. Once completed, he was to sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off Amar Singh from the rest, and thus to reduce him to terms.[1][5]
It bears a strongly similarity to the following extract from Fraser (1820)
...[The third division] was purposed to move directly to the Deyrah Dhoon; and, having reduced the forts in that fertile valley, to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward, to recover Sreenugger from the troops of Ummr Sing Thappah; or to the westward, to gain the post of Nahn, the chief town of Sirmore, where Runjore Sing Thappah held the government for his father, Ummr Sing; and so sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off that chief from the rest, and thus reduce him to terms.
Similarly the Wikipedia article says
The fort of Nalapani was situated on an insulated hill, about 500–600 feet (150–180 m) high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep. The table-land on the top is about .75 miles (1.21 km) in length; and Kalanga was situated on the southern and highest extremity of this hill.[9] It was an irregular fortification following the form of the ground. At the time the British entered the Dun valley, the fortification was still incomplete and its wall was not fully raised. The British found the Nepalese busily engaged in heightening and strengthening the fort.[9]
While Fraser says
The fort is situated on an insulated hill,about 5 or 600feet high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep.The table-land on the top may be about three quarters of a mile in length; and on the southern and highest extremity of this hill was Kalunga built. It was an irregular fortification, following the form of the ground, and at this time was imperfect, the wall not having been fully raised; but they were busily engaged in heightening and strengthening it.
The differences are cosmetic, the odd parenthetic statement has been removed and different forms of names used, but it substantially remains the same and the 1820 source down to the sentence structure. While this is not a copyright infringement because the source is long out of copyright, there is still an issue with attribution. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources states
the ... text [of a source in the public domain] can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)."
While Fraser is still given as a reference, in the article's current format it's not clear that some parts are taken directly from the source; it seems only that Fraser is used as a source of information, rather than wording. As such, I do not feel the article can be promoted until the issue of attribution is resolved. It is slightly puzzling, as in the aftermath section Fraser is clearly quoted, but earlier in the article his work is used without making it clear that he is the author. If Fraser's work is to be substantially used, perhaps using quotes is the way to go. Nev1 ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the inline citations are in anway ambiguous, attested by the fact that you could pin point the original source of information. I will however try to resolve these issues. ( Manoguru ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC))In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article.
G'day, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by posting here. Anyway, I've done a bit of copy editing on the article over the past two weeks. I've probably done all that I can now. I don't have much knowledge of the topic, so I have really only been trying to tighten up some of the language that was used. I hope that it has helped in some regard. If you do not agree with some of my edits, please feel free to revert/undo them. A couple of things that I noticed while working on the article:
Anyway, good luck with improving this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where I got this, but I think it is best to keep it in the talk page until I find the suitable reference:
1. The main reason for the failure of the British to swiftly capture the fort lay in the fact that their fighting style, more used to plains, with rigid infantry formations and cavalry charges, was ill-suited to mountain warfare. Against an enemy situated behind by a fortified wall, the cavalry was completely useless, and the infantry, using formations that had been developed for flat, open battlefields where it was important to maintain ranks and dressing, was rendered ineffective by the steep terrain. 2. The men under Gillespie, whether by intention or by accident, failed to obey his order. 3. The strategy of attrition, which to the British seemed a less valorous option, occurred to them only after they had paid a high price. 4. Infantry charges should not have been ordered until the walls completely broke down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoguru ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have read the previous failed nomination from last year and am aware of the issues raised there. I think that as it stands, although the article clearly draws heavily from public domain sources, this is not obvious from the text, which has been well edited and improved and most importantly this reliance has been clearly acknowledged throughout the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Slow and kids sound 182.50.66.29 ( talk) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Nalapani article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Nalapani has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: WikiCopter ( talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
These appear to have been addressed a long time ago; reviewer hasn't edited in a month though so new one is needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This article contains some content identical to the Anglo–Nepalese War article as demonstrated here. As some of the material was added to the war article in November and then the battle article in January byt the same editor ( Manoguru), it would seem part of this article was copied from the Anglo–Nepalese War. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I am noting that the history of the text can be found here Nev1 ( talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nev1 ( talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
In the course of reviewing the article I discovered some issues with archaic phrasing which prompted me to compare it with the sources used. It would seem that there are some cases of copying from public domain sources with minimal paraphrasing. Now while there are no issues with copyright, I don't think the current inline citations are sufficient attribution to satisfy WP:Plagiarism.
I would recommend that this article's author reads Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Of particular importance is the passage which reads.
As can be seen in this version of the article before I began copy editing, the phrase "The division at Meerut was formed under Major-General Gillespie; and it was purposed to march directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley, he was supposed to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward" can be found in an almost identical form on page 13 of Fraser's Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himālā mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges.
Furthermore footnote 1 can be found on pages 86 and 87 of Prinsep as a footnote. True, inline citations are given each time, but it is not explicitly stated that the material is copied from the sources. These are just two examples, but it would explain some of the archaic phrasing in the article. It is an important issue and needs to be addressed before I progress further with the GA review. As explained on the article's talk page, since some text was copied from Anglo–Nepalese War I would recommend checking that article too. I got as far as the prelude section and the comments I made on that part of the article and the lead are below. I will place the article on hold for seven days so that the issue of attribution can be sorted. Nev1 ( talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that while the article has undergone some copyediting, some of the phrasing is still close to the sources. For instance the following extract is from the article in its state as of 2 May 2012.
Once assembled, it marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley,[fn 1] the plan called for Gillespie to either move eastwards to recover Srinagar from the troops of Amar Singh Thapa, or westwards to gain the post of Nahan, the chief town of Sirmaur, where Ranjore Singh Thapa held the government for this father, Amar Singh. Once completed, he was to sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off Amar Singh from the rest, and thus to reduce him to terms.[1][5]
It bears a strongly similarity to the following extract from Fraser (1820)
...[The third division] was purposed to move directly to the Deyrah Dhoon; and, having reduced the forts in that fertile valley, to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward, to recover Sreenugger from the troops of Ummr Sing Thappah; or to the westward, to gain the post of Nahn, the chief town of Sirmore, where Runjore Sing Thappah held the government for his father, Ummr Sing; and so sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off that chief from the rest, and thus reduce him to terms.
Similarly the Wikipedia article says
The fort of Nalapani was situated on an insulated hill, about 500–600 feet (150–180 m) high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep. The table-land on the top is about .75 miles (1.21 km) in length; and Kalanga was situated on the southern and highest extremity of this hill.[9] It was an irregular fortification following the form of the ground. At the time the British entered the Dun valley, the fortification was still incomplete and its wall was not fully raised. The British found the Nepalese busily engaged in heightening and strengthening the fort.[9]
While Fraser says
The fort is situated on an insulated hill,about 5 or 600feet high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep.The table-land on the top may be about three quarters of a mile in length; and on the southern and highest extremity of this hill was Kalunga built. It was an irregular fortification, following the form of the ground, and at this time was imperfect, the wall not having been fully raised; but they were busily engaged in heightening and strengthening it.
The differences are cosmetic, the odd parenthetic statement has been removed and different forms of names used, but it substantially remains the same and the 1820 source down to the sentence structure. While this is not a copyright infringement because the source is long out of copyright, there is still an issue with attribution. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources states
the ... text [of a source in the public domain] can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)."
While Fraser is still given as a reference, in the article's current format it's not clear that some parts are taken directly from the source; it seems only that Fraser is used as a source of information, rather than wording. As such, I do not feel the article can be promoted until the issue of attribution is resolved. It is slightly puzzling, as in the aftermath section Fraser is clearly quoted, but earlier in the article his work is used without making it clear that he is the author. If Fraser's work is to be substantially used, perhaps using quotes is the way to go. Nev1 ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the inline citations are in anway ambiguous, attested by the fact that you could pin point the original source of information. I will however try to resolve these issues. ( Manoguru ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC))In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article.
G'day, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by posting here. Anyway, I've done a bit of copy editing on the article over the past two weeks. I've probably done all that I can now. I don't have much knowledge of the topic, so I have really only been trying to tighten up some of the language that was used. I hope that it has helped in some regard. If you do not agree with some of my edits, please feel free to revert/undo them. A couple of things that I noticed while working on the article:
Anyway, good luck with improving this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where I got this, but I think it is best to keep it in the talk page until I find the suitable reference:
1. The main reason for the failure of the British to swiftly capture the fort lay in the fact that their fighting style, more used to plains, with rigid infantry formations and cavalry charges, was ill-suited to mountain warfare. Against an enemy situated behind by a fortified wall, the cavalry was completely useless, and the infantry, using formations that had been developed for flat, open battlefields where it was important to maintain ranks and dressing, was rendered ineffective by the steep terrain. 2. The men under Gillespie, whether by intention or by accident, failed to obey his order. 3. The strategy of attrition, which to the British seemed a less valorous option, occurred to them only after they had paid a high price. 4. Infantry charges should not have been ordered until the walls completely broke down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoguru ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have read the previous failed nomination from last year and am aware of the issues raised there. I think that as it stands, although the article clearly draws heavily from public domain sources, this is not obvious from the text, which has been well edited and improved and most importantly this reliance has been clearly acknowledged throughout the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Slow and kids sound 182.50.66.29 ( talk) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)