India House is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyedited as far as end of section 2.2, "The Indian Sociologist". -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll copy the Background section across to the talk page here. I thought it concise and well-written. It gives substance to the idea of nationalism. What is India? What was India? Where does the nation start and stop? This question is still alive in Kashmir.
We don't need a definitive answer on Kashmir, but the overview provided links to articles the curious reader could pursue. Alastair Haines ( talk) 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The void arising from the precipitous decline of the Mughal Empire from the early decades of 18th century allowed emerging powers to grow in the Indian subcontinent. These included the Sikh Confederacy, the Maratha Confederacy, Nizamiyat, the local nawabs of Oudh and Bengal and other smaller powers. Each was a strong regional power influenced by its religious and ethnic identity. However, the East India Company ultimately emerged as the predominant power. One of the results of the social, economic and political changes instituted in the country throughout the greater part of 18th century was the growth of the Indian middle class. Although from different backgrounds and different parts of India, this middle class and its varied political leaderships contributed to a growing "Indian" identity". [1] The realisation and refinement of this concept of national identity fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s. [2] [3] [4]
First of all, kudos for all your hard work here – the article gave me a solid overview of a topic about which I know shamefully little. You've obviously devoted a great deal of time and effort to this piece, and it shows.
I've done a thorough copyedit, which will hopefully assuage the concerns raised at the FAC. Please note that I have not examined the sources, content, or organisation of the article in any meaningful way; I recommend having additional editors review those things before re-submitting it. (As they say, measure twice and cut once.)
Here are some questions and concerns which arose as I did my copyedit. There's no need to reply to each one when it's fixed, although of course if you want to discuss any of them, please feel free.
Good luck with the article, and let me know if you have any questions! – Scartol • Tok 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This completely escaped my notice, gimme half an hour to sort through the correctable stuff and I'll clarify anything that can be clarified after that. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope this does justice to the effort you put into this article. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
Thanks for the help. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this one just failed due to some copyediting issues. I was sad as it was a fascinating read and so close. I will ask a person or two to see if they can help, and hopefully it can be renominated. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now copy-edited the first four paragraphs. Pretty much every paragraph needs to be extensively rewritten. There is lots of good information here, but the style is too convoluted, with too much passive voice and needless and awkward phrasing. It resembles the style of undergrad seminar regurgitation of textbooks. I'll be happy to continue this as a favour to Casliber when I can. Until the prose is properly polished, this should not return as an FAC.
To the editors who have contributed to this: I knew nothing of this topic and I found it very interesting and well-referenced and deserving of FA in its substance. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:India House collage2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
In response to a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia#WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have finished going through the article India House once. As I read through it once more, I will leave some questions and concerns here.
1) The first sentence of the article starts:
I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House#Indian Home Rule Society "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong?
Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").
2) The second sentence of the lead is:
Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House#Indian Home Rule Society: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".
3) In the section India House#Indian Nationalism and Britain, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):
The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress" . The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.
Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:
seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):
Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.
4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:
I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:
5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following sentence:
I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.
6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following:
I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.
(To be continued.) Corinne ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
7) The first sentence in the section India House#Transformation begins:
Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".
8) The next sentence in that section is:
(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence.
(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".
(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.
9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:
I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures".
10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House#Transformation is the following:
The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.
11) The last paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.
12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House#Culmination is:
The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.
13) In the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.
14) Also in the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, we read:
Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?
15) The next two sentences are:
It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?
16) The first few sentences in India House#Indian Special Branch are:
In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?
17) The last sentence in that section is:
Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."
18) In the section India House#Influence, we read:
It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.
19) In the first paragraph of India House#Nationalist views, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.
I see now that I had not gotten to the end of the article on my first reading. I will continue working on it tomorrow. Corinne ( talk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"1) The first sentence of the article starts:
I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House#Indian Home Rule Society "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong? "
'::No you're not wrong.India House was the name of the student residence which became used to describe the organisations that used it, ie, Free India Society, Abhinav Bharat, and before these, the IHRS. I have now changed the lead to make this more clearly, let me know if there is clarity on this now.'
Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").
'::As above.'
2) The second sentence of the lead is:
Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House#Indian Home Rule Society: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".
'::I hope the reworded intro clarifies this now.Please let me know.'
3) In the section India House#Indian Nationalism and Britain, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):
The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress" . The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.
Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:
seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):
Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.
'::This section has now been reworded. Again, let me know if there is clarity and structure.'
4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:
I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:
'::I think this is a very welcome suggestion, I have changed the section accordingly.'
5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following sentence:
I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.
'::I accept your point, the sentence has been changed to say "universities".'
6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following:
I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.
'::You are probably very right, this has now been deleted.'
(To be continued.) Corinne ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
7) The first sentence in the section India House#Transformation begins:
Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".
'::As I explained in reference to your first point, "India House" was a term borrowed from the name of the residence itself to describe all the organisations, people and the political activities that went on under it's roof. Much as "the West" describes certain values, society, people, economies, etc. I hope the reworded lead, intro and the section in question itself clarifies your query. Please let me know.'
8) The next sentence in that section is:
(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence. '::As above.'
(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".
'::The sentence has now been restructured and expanded. Please let me know if this is clearer.'
(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.
9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:
I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures". '::As above.'
10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House#Transformation is the following:
The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.
'::Restructured, as above. Please let me know if there is clarity.'
11) The last paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.
'::The sentence is now reworded.I hope there is clarity now.'
12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House#Culmination is:
The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.
'::The Paris Indian Society's rise was not directly proportional to the fall of India house, they were two different organisations with a similar cohort of members and preserved core group who moved from Lpndon to Paris and took time to get into gear. I will try and clarify this in the next hour.'
13) In the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.
'::Sorted.' 14) Also in the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, we read:
Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?
'::This escaped my attention, thanks. Now sorted.'
15) The next two sentences are:
It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?
'::I am propbably biased, but "these events" refer to Savarkar's brother being arrested and Savarkar being barred from joining the Bar. I can't think of any clarification I can offer as both are mentoined in the preceding sentences. Perhaps you can offer a better structure?'
16) The first few sentences in India House#Indian Special Branch are:
In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?
'::I hope there is clarity now. Please let me know.'
17) The last sentence in that section is:
Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."
'::Done.'
18) In the section India House#Influence, we read:
It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.
19) In the first paragraph of India House#Nationalist views, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.
'::I'll take two hours to clarify as this will introduce some new material to the article that I had deliberately ommitted to keep it within size. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)'
rueben_lys Did you see these comments? Corinne ( talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) rueben_lys As I said above, you don't have to put your replies in bold italics. You can use regular font. Just indent your reply one more space from the left using a colon (:). Also, you don't have to copy each comment of mine before you reply. You can either type your reply right after my comment, or use the numbers and reply to all of my comments at the end. I've just made a few more minor copy-edits to the lead, but I've got to ask you about something. The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:
20) There is a little ambiguity in the use of the pronoun "they". The reader might wonder whether "they" refers to all of the men named, including Savarkar, or just to the last group named after "others included". If "they" refers to all of the men, including Savarkar, I would change "they" to "all of these". Corinne ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
21) The second sentence in India House#Nationalism in India is:
I wonder whether instead of "proprietors" you would consider either "merchants" or "business owners". Corinne ( talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
22) The fourth sentence in India House#Indian Nationalism in Britain starts:
It's not clear who "they" is. Does "they" refer to "the socialist" mentioned in the previous sentence or to the members of "the British arm of the Congress"? I recommend not using the pronoun ("they") and instead using a word or phrase that says clearly who you mean. Corinne ( talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
23) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian nationalism in Britain are the following sentences:
(a) Regarding the first sentence, it is not clear in what sense "the IHRS was available 'to Indians only'". Perhaps this should say, "Membership in the IHRS was open to Indians only." Corinne ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(b) Regarding the second sentence, you say "Funds...helped the organisation".
Can you say how? Did students donate part of their scholarship money to the IHRS? Corinne ( talk) 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(I made some changes to my comment because I realized I had mixed up IHRS and India House.) Corinne ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
24) I have some questions about the last section of the article, India House#Hindu nationalism:
(a) In the second sentence, you mention "Gandhian devotionalism". I did a search of the term "devotionalism"; it led only to a list of articles, and I wasn't sure if any of them were appropriate for a link. I looked at the Mahatma Gandhi article itself, and only found one reference to his idea of devotion, Satyagraha. I looked at that article, and it seemed to be appropriate. I wonder if you would like to link "devotionalism" to the article Satyagraha.
(b) You'll see that I added a little to the sentence that starts "Further" to make it clearer. (You can change "theories" to "ideas" or "concepts" if that's better.) However, I notice that in those last sentences of the paragraph, you mention Spencer three times: "Spencerian theories", "Spencerian doctrines" and "Spencerian ideas". I wonder if you could consolidate some of the material to reduce the mention of Spencer by at least one (if not by two). Also, you mention the influence Spencer's ideas had on his own ideas several times. I wonder if you could consolidate those, or at least not mention the influence as much. If you need help doing this, let me know, and I'll work on it. Corinne ( talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
23) How did the funds available to students help the organisation? This is not clarified, but I imagine student's donated a part of their funds to IHRS. I'm afraid this is not spelt out in as many words in any of the literature, but this is the general indication from the literature that is available.
24 a)You are correct, and this is now linked. 24 b) I see your point, and the paragraph has been reworded. Let me know if the structure is good. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a request for comment more than anything else. There are low resolution annotated images of the drawings and constructions of the much talked about Picric acid bomb that Safranski taught Kanungo, chiefly from website linked to Aurobindo. These are annotated images with Bengali markings. Given the current world situation and thoughts, would such an image added to this article be deemed inappropriate or in poor taste? My oersinal thoughts were low resolution truncated images should be acceptable for encyclopaedic value. Comments please. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
India House is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyedited as far as end of section 2.2, "The Indian Sociologist". -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll copy the Background section across to the talk page here. I thought it concise and well-written. It gives substance to the idea of nationalism. What is India? What was India? Where does the nation start and stop? This question is still alive in Kashmir.
We don't need a definitive answer on Kashmir, but the overview provided links to articles the curious reader could pursue. Alastair Haines ( talk) 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The void arising from the precipitous decline of the Mughal Empire from the early decades of 18th century allowed emerging powers to grow in the Indian subcontinent. These included the Sikh Confederacy, the Maratha Confederacy, Nizamiyat, the local nawabs of Oudh and Bengal and other smaller powers. Each was a strong regional power influenced by its religious and ethnic identity. However, the East India Company ultimately emerged as the predominant power. One of the results of the social, economic and political changes instituted in the country throughout the greater part of 18th century was the growth of the Indian middle class. Although from different backgrounds and different parts of India, this middle class and its varied political leaderships contributed to a growing "Indian" identity". [1] The realisation and refinement of this concept of national identity fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s. [2] [3] [4]
First of all, kudos for all your hard work here – the article gave me a solid overview of a topic about which I know shamefully little. You've obviously devoted a great deal of time and effort to this piece, and it shows.
I've done a thorough copyedit, which will hopefully assuage the concerns raised at the FAC. Please note that I have not examined the sources, content, or organisation of the article in any meaningful way; I recommend having additional editors review those things before re-submitting it. (As they say, measure twice and cut once.)
Here are some questions and concerns which arose as I did my copyedit. There's no need to reply to each one when it's fixed, although of course if you want to discuss any of them, please feel free.
Good luck with the article, and let me know if you have any questions! – Scartol • Tok 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This completely escaped my notice, gimme half an hour to sort through the correctable stuff and I'll clarify anything that can be clarified after that. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope this does justice to the effort you put into this article. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
Thanks for the help. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this one just failed due to some copyediting issues. I was sad as it was a fascinating read and so close. I will ask a person or two to see if they can help, and hopefully it can be renominated. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now copy-edited the first four paragraphs. Pretty much every paragraph needs to be extensively rewritten. There is lots of good information here, but the style is too convoluted, with too much passive voice and needless and awkward phrasing. It resembles the style of undergrad seminar regurgitation of textbooks. I'll be happy to continue this as a favour to Casliber when I can. Until the prose is properly polished, this should not return as an FAC.
To the editors who have contributed to this: I knew nothing of this topic and I found it very interesting and well-referenced and deserving of FA in its substance. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:India House collage2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
In response to a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia#WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have finished going through the article India House once. As I read through it once more, I will leave some questions and concerns here.
1) The first sentence of the article starts:
I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House#Indian Home Rule Society "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong?
Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").
2) The second sentence of the lead is:
Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House#Indian Home Rule Society: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".
3) In the section India House#Indian Nationalism and Britain, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):
The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress" . The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.
Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:
seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):
Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.
4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:
I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:
5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following sentence:
I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.
6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following:
I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.
(To be continued.) Corinne ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
7) The first sentence in the section India House#Transformation begins:
Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".
8) The next sentence in that section is:
(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence.
(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".
(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.
9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:
I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures".
10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House#Transformation is the following:
The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.
11) The last paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.
12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House#Culmination is:
The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.
13) In the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.
14) Also in the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, we read:
Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?
15) The next two sentences are:
It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?
16) The first few sentences in India House#Indian Special Branch are:
In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?
17) The last sentence in that section is:
Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."
18) In the section India House#Influence, we read:
It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.
19) In the first paragraph of India House#Nationalist views, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.
I see now that I had not gotten to the end of the article on my first reading. I will continue working on it tomorrow. Corinne ( talk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"1) The first sentence of the article starts:
I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House#Indian Home Rule Society "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong? "
'::No you're not wrong.India House was the name of the student residence which became used to describe the organisations that used it, ie, Free India Society, Abhinav Bharat, and before these, the IHRS. I have now changed the lead to make this more clearly, let me know if there is clarity on this now.'
Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").
'::As above.'
2) The second sentence of the lead is:
Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House#Indian Home Rule Society: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".
'::I hope the reworded intro clarifies this now.Please let me know.'
3) In the section India House#Indian Nationalism and Britain, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):
The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress" . The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.
Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:
seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):
Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.
'::This section has now been reworded. Again, let me know if there is clarity and structure.'
4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:
I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:
'::I think this is a very welcome suggestion, I have changed the section accordingly.'
5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following sentence:
I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.
'::I accept your point, the sentence has been changed to say "universities".'
6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House#Indian Home Rule Society is the following:
I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.
'::You are probably very right, this has now been deleted.'
(To be continued.) Corinne ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
7) The first sentence in the section India House#Transformation begins:
Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".
'::As I explained in reference to your first point, "India House" was a term borrowed from the name of the residence itself to describe all the organisations, people and the political activities that went on under it's roof. Much as "the West" describes certain values, society, people, economies, etc. I hope the reworded lead, intro and the section in question itself clarifies your query. Please let me know.'
8) The next sentence in that section is:
(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence. '::As above.'
(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".
'::The sentence has now been restructured and expanded. Please let me know if this is clearer.'
(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.
9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:
I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures". '::As above.'
10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House#Transformation is the following:
The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.
'::Restructured, as above. Please let me know if there is clarity.'
11) The last paragraph in India House#Transformation is:
Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.
'::The sentence is now reworded.I hope there is clarity now.'
12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House#Culmination is:
The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.
'::The Paris Indian Society's rise was not directly proportional to the fall of India house, they were two different organisations with a similar cohort of members and preserved core group who moved from Lpndon to Paris and took time to get into gear. I will try and clarify this in the next hour.'
13) In the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.
'::Sorted.' 14) Also in the section India House#Department of Criminal Intelligence, we read:
Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?
'::This escaped my attention, thanks. Now sorted.'
15) The next two sentences are:
It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?
'::I am propbably biased, but "these events" refer to Savarkar's brother being arrested and Savarkar being barred from joining the Bar. I can't think of any clarification I can offer as both are mentoined in the preceding sentences. Perhaps you can offer a better structure?'
16) The first few sentences in India House#Indian Special Branch are:
In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?
'::I hope there is clarity now. Please let me know.'
17) The last sentence in that section is:
Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."
'::Done.'
18) In the section India House#Influence, we read:
It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.
19) In the first paragraph of India House#Nationalist views, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.
'::I'll take two hours to clarify as this will introduce some new material to the article that I had deliberately ommitted to keep it within size. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)'
rueben_lys Did you see these comments? Corinne ( talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) rueben_lys As I said above, you don't have to put your replies in bold italics. You can use regular font. Just indent your reply one more space from the left using a colon (:). Also, you don't have to copy each comment of mine before you reply. You can either type your reply right after my comment, or use the numbers and reply to all of my comments at the end. I've just made a few more minor copy-edits to the lead, but I've got to ask you about something. The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:
20) There is a little ambiguity in the use of the pronoun "they". The reader might wonder whether "they" refers to all of the men named, including Savarkar, or just to the last group named after "others included". If "they" refers to all of the men, including Savarkar, I would change "they" to "all of these". Corinne ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
21) The second sentence in India House#Nationalism in India is:
I wonder whether instead of "proprietors" you would consider either "merchants" or "business owners". Corinne ( talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
22) The fourth sentence in India House#Indian Nationalism in Britain starts:
It's not clear who "they" is. Does "they" refer to "the socialist" mentioned in the previous sentence or to the members of "the British arm of the Congress"? I recommend not using the pronoun ("they") and instead using a word or phrase that says clearly who you mean. Corinne ( talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
23) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian nationalism in Britain are the following sentences:
(a) Regarding the first sentence, it is not clear in what sense "the IHRS was available 'to Indians only'". Perhaps this should say, "Membership in the IHRS was open to Indians only." Corinne ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(b) Regarding the second sentence, you say "Funds...helped the organisation".
Can you say how? Did students donate part of their scholarship money to the IHRS? Corinne ( talk) 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(I made some changes to my comment because I realized I had mixed up IHRS and India House.) Corinne ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
24) I have some questions about the last section of the article, India House#Hindu nationalism:
(a) In the second sentence, you mention "Gandhian devotionalism". I did a search of the term "devotionalism"; it led only to a list of articles, and I wasn't sure if any of them were appropriate for a link. I looked at the Mahatma Gandhi article itself, and only found one reference to his idea of devotion, Satyagraha. I looked at that article, and it seemed to be appropriate. I wonder if you would like to link "devotionalism" to the article Satyagraha.
(b) You'll see that I added a little to the sentence that starts "Further" to make it clearer. (You can change "theories" to "ideas" or "concepts" if that's better.) However, I notice that in those last sentences of the paragraph, you mention Spencer three times: "Spencerian theories", "Spencerian doctrines" and "Spencerian ideas". I wonder if you could consolidate some of the material to reduce the mention of Spencer by at least one (if not by two). Also, you mention the influence Spencer's ideas had on his own ideas several times. I wonder if you could consolidate those, or at least not mention the influence as much. If you need help doing this, let me know, and I'll work on it. Corinne ( talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
23) How did the funds available to students help the organisation? This is not clarified, but I imagine student's donated a part of their funds to IHRS. I'm afraid this is not spelt out in as many words in any of the literature, but this is the general indication from the literature that is available.
24 a)You are correct, and this is now linked. 24 b) I see your point, and the paragraph has been reworded. Let me know if the structure is good. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a request for comment more than anything else. There are low resolution annotated images of the drawings and constructions of the much talked about Picric acid bomb that Safranski taught Kanungo, chiefly from website linked to Aurobindo. These are annotated images with Bengali markings. Given the current world situation and thoughts, would such an image added to this article be deemed inappropriate or in poor taste? My oersinal thoughts were low resolution truncated images should be acceptable for encyclopaedic value. Comments please. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)