Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bengal famine of 1943/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2017 [1].
- Nominator(s): Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a man-made famine (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
General comment: This article is of undoubted importance. My concerns are:
- Length: the article has grown by 2,200 words since its archived FAC earlier this year, and now stands at 16,500 words or 103kb of readable prose, greatly in excess of the maximum suggested by WP:SIZE.
- The previous FAC achieved no supports and several opposes; is that not an indication that some intermediate review should be undertaken before its return to FAC?
- I see that the article talk page contains this statement from Lingzhi dated 2 September: "It has now been four months since the failed FAC. I will wait two more months, then I will put this article into WP:PR. After a healthy period residing in that forum (how long I leave it depends on how much activity it gathers, but I would say the reasonable minimum time would be 3 weeks to 1 month." I can't find any trace of this peer review. Did it ever happen? Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your spot-on comments. The peer review, with only one respondent, is here Perhaps I didn't link to it correctly. That review shares concerns about length; I respond by agreeing and saying I am very open to trimming some content which seems to be largely peripheral...
- As for the first FAC, as nearly as I can understand, the main reason that a small but very keen and proactive group of editors was up in arms about that FAC was that the article version nominated was (by their account) created in an un-Wikipedia-like manner in my sandbox and (probably more importantly) thrown into FAC within minutes of its unveiling. This process led to concerns which I at the time (quite stupidly) did not foresee: that the article would be opposed on the basis of stability. So now it is stable.
- There was a huge amount of discussion of me and my methods but not much discussion at all about the content of the article itself. One of the original Opposes has repeatedly said that the article is chock-full of errors, and is apparently keeping a list somewhere in his/her personal possession. But that list hasn't been presented. That editor has also made other unsubstantiated claims, and will probably show up to continue doing so.
- This article is quite controversial and even repellent to both pro-UK editors (or in a less broad context, pro-Indian Army editors) on one hand, and Indian nationalists on the other hand, for completely opposite reasons.
- The article is stable. I am quite willing and eager to trim text based on well-reasoned discussion. I am hoping that neutral and dispassionate reviewers will show up and begin discussing article content rather than Lingzhi. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for this reply, and for providing the PR link. The PR discussion rather confirms my fears, that the length of the article will not only inhibit readability but will prevent proper review scrutiny. I am all in favour of developing articles on important and controversial issues – and must belately thank and congratulate you for your sterling work on this one – but all is in vain if no one reads the end-product. I don't accept the oft-quoted dictum that all the arguments on any issue can be reduced to one side of paper, but I do believe that however complex a topic, a precise and comprehensive summary can be made in a lot less than 16,000 words. Anyway, I propose to read the article (which will take some time) and in due course I'll bring forward suggestions as to how it might be reduced. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am quite genuinely in your debt, as are those who read the article in the future... I too feel that at least 2000 words could be sent into the ether with practically no harm done. Perhaps more than that? Skillful editors can determine the answer. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for this reply, and for providing the PR link. The PR discussion rather confirms my fears, that the length of the article will not only inhibit readability but will prevent proper review scrutiny. I am all in favour of developing articles on important and controversial issues – and must belately thank and congratulate you for your sterling work on this one – but all is in vain if no one reads the end-product. I don't accept the oft-quoted dictum that all the arguments on any issue can be reduced to one side of paper, but I do believe that however complex a topic, a precise and comprehensive summary can be made in a lot less than 16,000 words. Anyway, I propose to read the article (which will take some time) and in due course I'll bring forward suggestions as to how it might be reduced. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to oppose because I can see the huge effort you've put it into it and it's good to see a neglected but important topic getting the attention it deserve. But ... good grief, 16,555 words! Barack Obama is currently the longest featured article by bytes and that's 12,600 words (almost fully four thousand words shorter); you could write a featured article in the difference. The three longest featured articles are all contemporary American politicians and although they're all far too long, it's understandable that it's difficult to split those into sub-articles because crazy people will accuse you of censoring this or underemphasising that. Although controversy still rages about the Bengal famine, I can't believe it's not possible to to split this article into smaller ones and summarise them in the main article (for example Background to the Bengal famine of 1943, Causes of the Bengal famine of 1943). I'm not criticising the impressive research that you've obviously put into this; it's just too big to be comfortably digested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you look at WT:FAC you'll see that the nominator has requested withdrawal, and that I have volunteered myself for the task of reducing the prose. In time, a more concise version will likely appear here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.