Dear @ BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)
I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done,
Fixed,
Added,
Not done,
Doing..., or
Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II.I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (
The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa.Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
three diverse economic and social groups:or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
The flooding of fallow fieldsIs this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?
one million IndiansMy understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
[...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent.This could be reduced;
even as a food crisis began.
As a second prong, a "boat denial" policyHow about The second prong?
Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
{{{sfn}}}
. ♦
Lingzhi2
(talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Government of India 1945citation is broken.
( ←) That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.
Good Article review progress box
|
"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."
— The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.
( ←) This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Now that
Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it
. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear @ BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)
I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done,
Fixed,
Added,
Not done,
Doing..., or
Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II.I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (
The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa.Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
three diverse economic and social groups:or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
The flooding of fallow fieldsIs this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?
one million IndiansMy understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
[...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent.This could be reduced;
even as a food crisis began.
As a second prong, a "boat denial" policyHow about The second prong?
Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
{{{sfn}}}
. ♦
Lingzhi2
(talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Government of India 1945citation is broken.
( ←) That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.
Good Article review progress box
|
"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."
— The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.
( ←) This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Now that
Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it
. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)