Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by GrahamColm 13:34, 25 February 2012 [1].

James Tod

[edit]

James Tod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been developed from a poor copy/paste of Britannica 1911 into a substantial, rounded article that achieved GA in August 2011, has been peer reviewed by User:Finetooth, and has input from others with FAC experience such as Saravask and Fowler&fowler. There have been several suggestions that I should put it forward as a FAC. Sitush (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: The first paragraph of the lead should include more than just who the subject was. It should include the main reason(s) why he is interesting and/or notable, and thus provide some sort of a hook for the reader. Otherwise, from my quick scan, the article looks impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll have a think about how to deal with that over the next day or two. My past admissions that lead sections are not my strong point are scattered far and wide on en-WP! - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bibliography entry for ODNB doesn't mention the author, and is rather oddly formatted
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • FN 20: not clear what source this refers to
  • Koditchek or Koditschek?
  • Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not
  • Be consistent in whether shortened footnotes include dates where there is only one work by that author
  • FN 44: why not cite to East India Company?
  • FN 46: title doesn't match that used in Bibliography
  • Be consistent in whether locations and publishers are provided for journals
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two ODNB entries. The ODNBweb template only works for the present online ODNB, afaik, and hence the older ODNB is referenced differently. I was advised not to mention the author names (at least one was in there originally) but, obviously, things can be twiddled as necessary. This would mean abandoning ODNBweb.

    I have never understood the "Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not" statement & would appreciate clarification. As for the rest, I'll resolve them after I've had a much-needed sleep. Thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further thoughts: your comments regarding alphabetisation and FNs 20, 44 & 46 all boil down to something that I have been trying to get my head round for some time. How should I cite items with no given author, and how should they be ordered in the bibliography (eg: by article name or publication?) - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ranges, compare for example "Sreenivasan (2007), pp. 126–127." with "Tod (1829), Vol. 1., pp. 125–6." - notice how one shortens the range and the other does not? As to anonymous works, I've most often seen them cited by title (either book title or article title), and alphabetized the same way. However, you can choose another method if you prefer, so long as a) it's applied consistently, and b) it's clear which citations correspond to which bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks. I think that I have fixed where appropriate, with the exception of your ODNB point. Would you prefer that I abandon the {{ODNBweb}} template, as that would appear to be the crux of the problem? The blurb at ODNB says "Stephen Wheeler, ‘Tod, James (1782–1835)’, rev. Roger T. Stearn, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004" but there are much, much more complex versions listed (eg: MLA). - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where I sit, here are your options wrt that template: abandoning it, and replacing either with a different type of template or hand-coding it; keeping it but hand-coding the author in front of it; changing the shortened citation to not use the author name. I have a preference, but it's based on what I like rather than what's actually required, so I'll leave it to you to decide which of those options you would prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will abandon it. Give me a few hours as it is late here. Somewhere last year, the template was introduced to me in a GA situation. I was (am!) fairly green. I thought that the introducer was Malleus but I discovered in the last week or so that he didn't even know the thing existed. I am not trawling through all of my edits to work out where or why: if you and Malleus both are both effectively non-cognisant then I am happy to go with that flow. I do not dispute that it looks odd. Your comments are appreciated. This entire exercise is turning into quite a formative experience for me, which is no bad thing. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "and give reason for the inhabitants not to be swayed by outside forces" seems forced into place, the resulting sentence made clunky and difficult; a barrier to smooth reading. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Lead:] I don't like "later" in "...educated in Scotland, later joining the East India Company..." In one way, it's redundant, and if it is not (for instance, if people in Scotland don't join the EIC, or if it is important that he got his degree first), then another transitional word or phrase would be in order.
  • [Lead:] "particularly among those whose ancestors he praised"--"those" suggests either an antecedent (which there isn't) or a noun of some sort. Not grammatically, of course, but rhetorically. Those castes? tribes?
  • [Lead:] Maybe combining the last two short paragraphs look better?
  • Yes, they are short. But no, I really do not see how they can be combined. The paragraph really does look like a natural break to me in this instance. But I am not involved in English language academia. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Life and career:] My congratulations for "whence"--well done. It's underused.
  • [Life and career:] "...what he perceived to be the chivalric values of those times"--this reads like he had a historical sense, but I assume you mean he perceived the importance of the values of those times to his own time.
  • No, it really was a historical sense. Sure, he and others wanted to transpose the past to the present but the root of the romanticism was that he really, really was attuned to the mores of that age. Hence his pride in the Robert the Bruce link etc.
  • [Life and career:] "Artist, Ghasi, Rajputana" is the caption for the first image--I am not sure about the first comma.
  • [Life and career:] "appointment to which position was at the time"--could you be any more BE? ;)
  • [Life and career:] "He was appointed lieutenant ..."--that's a lot of to's and as's and an and in that sentence.
  • Yes. I have tried to to to amend it as as as as best I can in in in the circumstances. Again, if anyone has a better suggestion then it would be welcomed. That thing has grated with me for a while but I needed some sort of push to do something about it. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Life and career:] "He suffered from poor health for much of his life before and after..."--I don't see why this comes here. Without the before, it suggests cause and effect, but with before and after, it appears to be randomly placed--a general comment at a precise moment. Perhaps it is better placed after the quote that follows, in the sentence mentioning his return.
  • [Life and career:] "He had suffered a similar fit..."--this is odd, since it is the last sentence of the section and comes after the report on his death. If there is an unspoken assertion about the cause of his cause of death, so to speak, it should be explicated; if not, it is better placed chronologically, earlier in the same paragraph, or perhaps after the children and mention of his declining health.
  • [Worldview:] "Norbert Peabody has gone further..."--in AE, I wouldn't use this verbal perfect construction and would replace with a simple preterite, but this may be part and parcel of y'all's peculiar dialect. Also, who are Koditschek and Peabody? Are they important? Are they scholars, biographers, cultists, experts? A phrase for each would help give context and authority.
  • Oh, now you are losing me. I've fixed the introductory stuff but when people make up words such as "preterite", well, I am lost. You'll have to point me to something that explains the term. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "then-fashionable"--I approve of your hyphen. Well done, sir.
  • [Worldview:] the wikilink for Romantic nationalism actually points back as well, to the comment by this Sreenivasan (BTW, I don't know who that is--see Koditschek, above), and perhaps the term could be placed/explained there, to give the proper context for the term in that quote.
  • [Worldview:] the parenthetic "both geographical and political" is set off with, you know, them hyphen things, but my MOS (the MLA) dictates no spaces around them.
  • Yes, I noticed that you did an edit in the last few hours based on "my MOS", which would appear to be MLA given this comment. I am lost here. WP:MOS is a moving target and mentions various recognised "real world" manuals of style. To be honest, I do not care as long as everyone else is happy. Flow, go with. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "However, his successes in arranging these matters via treaties did not extend to a third pillar of his beliefs." I can dig where you're coming from, but this needs rephrasing--successes that extend to a metaphorical something, especially since I don't know that the other two pillars are. Perhaps Romantic nationalism is the first? what's the second? (Don't remind me of that embarrassing "pillar" photograph of yourself.)
  • The photo was at Eagle Crag. Pillar is somewhere else, although I've strolled up that one also. I do not see the issue here, unless there is a problem with counting ;) "Tod's belief in the then-fashionable concept of Romantic nationalism dictated that 1 each princely state should be inhabited by only one community and this led to the expulsion of Marathas, Pindaris and other groups from Rajput territories. It also 2 dictated redrawing the territorial boundaries of the various states in order to better delineate them as separate entities, where previously some lines – both geographical and political – had been blurred, primarily due to local arrangements based on common kinship. However, his successes in arranging these matters via treaties did not extend to a third 3pillar ..." Either I am missing your point or the phrasing is unclear. I would appreciate some advice. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the metaphor "pillar" is not helpful. Successes cannot extend to begin with, and certainly not to a pillar. I think you should begin by recasting the first sentence of the paragraph: it's not his belief that dictates, it's Romantic nationalism. Then, who did the expelling and the redrawing? Tod? How the sentence can be recast depends on your answer to that question. "Guided by the then-fashionable concept...Tod believed that each princely state...and had the Marathas etc. expelled. He also redrew..." Then, I don't know what the third thing is, a thing that apparently he didn't believe in. I think, from what I might know about Romantic nationalism, that the idea is that British rule somehow or other should be superior when in actual fact it's just another overlordship. Is that on the right track?

    Then, paragraph break for indirect rule, I would suggest. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Worldview:] "indirect rule", I just learned, is a notable concept. Consider wikilinking.
  • Meh. Linked. This is one of those do we/don't we links. Imo, most people understand the term, but then I am a Brit and indirect rule is as recent as Northern Ireland. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was news to me--but of course my country has no colonial history at all, and nothing to repent for. I don't think that it would be clear to many US readers. As I just said above, I think it should be a separate paragraph: it's long enough, and it's not necessarily connected to the concept of Romantic nationalism. Now, if my thoughts (above) on your third pillar are correct, and Tod criticizes one aspect of colonialism that would otherwise be accepted by Romantics, then you have a possible transition. "Another aspect of colonialism that Tod both supported and criticized..." Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "most notably because he thought"--I don't see how his views acquired a political aspect because he thought something. It seems to me that his views on some (possibly more abstract) matter have a political aspect or they don't; if they acquire it it should be because of some development, i.e, "in the course of time he began to think" or some such thing. Or, "the political consequence of this view was..." You're using notably twice in the beginning of this paragraph--perhaps none is enough.
  • [Worldview:] "granting sovereignty to the Rajputs" is not an argument.
  • [Worldview:] "Mughals" is not wikilinked; the next section has Mughal empire wikilinked. Link the early occurrence. Also, link Marathas (piped).
  • [Worldview:] "Above all, it saw character"--what's it? appeal? feudal system?
  • [Worldview:] "there were claims that"--he acknowledged that there were claims? sounds a bit redundant. He acknowledged that blood ties played a part? then trim.
  • [Publications:] "Metcalf believes of the Rajputs" is an awkward construction: he believes something by Tod about the Rajputs, I think.
  • Image: "Painting of Tod seated on an elephant (October 1822)"--is the image from October 1822, or is that when he was on the elephant? The parentheses suggest the former.
  • Image: "The residency in Udaipur, which was the home of the resident or political agent". In the article you have Political Agent, both with initial caps, I believe. Also, why "or"? Is this Tod's home when he was a Political Agent?
  • Fixed, although whether it was Tod's home cannot be ascertained from the source that I have provided - date of construction is not given. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fix the caps (they should both be so, imo). Regarding the issue of whether it was Tod's home, well, this comes back to Fowler's image work. He is travelling at the moment but I'll see if I can get to the source via a proxy. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Publications:] Section beginning "In the preface to his Annals..." is a long quote, and it needs a transitional phrase to indicate relation to the topic or to the preceding paragraph, and (I think) it needs an explanation of what is in the quote (and thus a justification of why we have the quote). Also, the next paragraph needs a transition/topic sentence.
  • [Criticism:] "The introduction to his Travels..."--this is Tod speaking? No--this was published posthumously, and it's an unnamed editor (if I remember correctly)? Clarify/contextualize.
  • {Criticism:] I am not sure how a propos Macaulay's criticism is. He's of Tod's time, so he's not one of the critics who deem Tod's sources to be unreliable, right? Or, if he and Crooke count as "today"'s critics, I see those comments as simply dismissive of Indian sources rather than as historically suspect--at any rate, Macaulay's and Crooke's criticism are not, in my opinion, on a par.
  • I disagree. William Crooke (another one of mine) was writing 90 years later and was a noted folklorist when most of his contemporaries, such as Herbert Hope Risley (ditto), were scientific racists. In other words, he was nearer to Tod's way of thinking than most and yet still took him to task. The opinion of Macaulay, like James Mill, is relevant because it shows that people considered the sources that Tod used to be suspect even around the time that Tod was writing. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Well, I think Macaulay's comment (I just reread it) sounds like typical white man's we-know-better speech: maybe it's out of context, but it seems to point to quality, not to some argument about the value and accuracy of historicity (unlike Crooke's comment). And one other thing: Macaulay is not commenting on Tod in your source, so why bring him in? I don't want to cry SYNTH, but do you really need him? BTW, consider rephrasing "That introduction continues by saying that" (which is a transition for the sake of a transition) with someone that drives home the point from the first sentence, about his reliance on historically unobjective or unreliable material. What I'm saying also is that you don't need Macaulay since Crooke's point seems strong enough.
  • I do not see this as SYNTH but will re-visit that article to be sure. The point is that the shaky foundations of Tod's sourcing were known even around his own time. Macaulay was in India himself. Yes, it may be a typical white man's reaction etc, but it is one that still applies today (eg: Donkin is among the many current scholars who dismiss the Puranas and other ancient Indian texts, with the notable exception of Kalhana's Rajatarangini). I forget which of the modern sources it is, but one of them specifically makes this point and uses Macaulay to illustrate it. It is probably Freitag & I could check if necessary. We have a contemporary (Macaulay), we have a more recent editor who empathised with Tod (Crooke) and we have the modern scholars, all saying the same thing: this is a consistency of criticism regarding ancient sources that spans 175 years or so, and yet in Rajasthan today Tod is still held in very high esteem. Anyway, I'll take another look at WP:SYNTH and, yes, look at the transition etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what Freitag (2009), p. 18 says: "In 1835, the year of Tod's death, Macauley published his "Minute on Indian Education", famously declaring the worthlessness of the sum of India literature as compared with that of Europe. Tod had, by then, devoted over thirty years of his life, and unknown sums of money, to the collection, analysis and publication of this very literature and history." The Donkin bit, however, is probably a breach of WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a think and, ok, maybe I am being specious but the paragraph opens with "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable." (My emphasis). Given that, even Donkin seems appropriate, despite him not mentioning Tod at all. Am I pushing my luck here? - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Bibliography:] I don't think that "on the website of the" (in italics) is necessary for the ODNB entry, but I could be mistaken.
  • This comes back to the Nikkimaria point, I suspect. Guided by (probably) Malleus in a past GA for Isaac Perrins, I was introduced to the ONDBweb template. It seems to me that this is creating problems in a FAC situation. If you and Nikkimaria want to conflab or just basically tell me that this is not the way to do things then I'll switch it to a standard cite template with an ODNBsub attached. Is that the solution? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you feeling any sharp pains yet, Drmies? I am sticking pins in a photograph of you. Can I intersperse my comments in the appropriate bullet points above? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an aversion to pink, due to my numerous nieces. Kernow is beyond me, although I did once manage to kick a goal in a rugby match whereby the ball travelled so far that it started in Cornwall and landed in Devon. Strong in body, weak in mind? - Sitush (talk)
  • A general remark on style: Sitush, FAs are strange things, I find, when it comes to style. For instance, that ODNB entry/template, I know nothing of the discussion you mentioned: all I can do is point out what strikes me as odd or noteworthy, one way or another. If it is the proper way to do it according to whatever WP guidelines, it's fine with me. Whatever Malleus says, whatever Nikkimaria says, that's probably more correct than what I say. Similar with the hyphens etc--you don't have to do what I suggest, and what I hope is that someone here will point out what the standard is here, and I am gladly overruled. Let me put it another way: I'm probably better as a proofreader for actual language than as a copyeditor for the stylistic minutiae (no disrespect intended to the FA process). Drmies (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There are just many too images stacked on the right. Please remove some images and stagger right-and-left the images per prescribed in MOS
  • WP:MOSIMAGES says that they can be place left and right, not that they must be. Personally, I find articles that have them scattered around more difficult to read. Is this really that significant? Fowler&fowler added all but the first image and presented them mostly in a gallery, which looked odd. Someone else stacked them in the form that they are now presented (they had a chat with F&f first) and it looks better to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context:
    • " "high standing", according to Jason Freitag": Who is Jason Freitag? or why is his view notable? Add a short description of important eg. orientalist Jason Freitag or author of "ABC", Jason Freitag ... Similarly, names like Robert the Bruce, Reginald Heber, Krishna, Mira bai etc. need descriptions
  • I am loathe to go into any depth about linked names such as Robert the Bruce and Mira Bai. They just add complexity. It is explained that Freitag is his major (only significant) biographer. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relate Rajputana and Rajasthan in lead. May seem like 2 places to something unfamiliar with India.
  • There is no info about Tod's Jain guru in the main text.
  • Because none has been found beyond the fact that he was some sort of servant who helped out with translations from time to time - all rather vague. I'll look again, just in case I've missed something. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the Rajasthan note related to "Central India"???
It appeared to me as though Rajasthan was called "Central India". --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names, gender of children??
  • 2 sons, 1 daughter. One has the wonderful name of Grant Heatly Tod-Heatly, then there is Edward H. M. Tod and Mary Augusta Tod. But none of them appeared to have any notability in their own right & so I did not see any need to go into further detail. Is this not fairly normal practice? - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote "Being desirous of epitomising...": Relate Poorán to Purana, "genealogies of the great races of Soorya and Chandra" will be unclear to a non-Indian reader
  • Yes, this is an the issue with the MOS guidelines for links in quotes (see below). I suppose that since they are only guidelines, they can be ignored but I would rather have some additional support here for doing that. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not talking about links. I am talking about clarity and readability to a non-Indian reader. A non-Indian will assume Puranas and their sacred volumes, the Pooráns are two different things.
  • I am non-Indian ;) Point taken, though. Can this be done as a footnote? There is also the old "Rajpoot" spelling, for example, and we're going to end up with a lot of qualifiers inside quotations unless a single footnote listing and linking archaic spellings is used. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you paraphrase rather than quote. That will solve the problem. Also it is abstract (inconsistent) to use "took advice on linguistic issues from a panel of pandits" and then pundhits in the quote. Other examples Jetty Gyanchandra. I suggest use all current spellings for consistency. Also " the great races of Soorya and Chandra" should be explained. "Soorya and Chandra" are not kings, but gods Surya and Chandra. Tod is talking about Suryavansha and Chandravanshi kings. May be you need to link. Also relate "Rajas'han" to Rajasthan. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:MOSQUOTE - "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". I am not convinced that Jats or Gurjars need to be linked: the context is obvious and there is a search box at top right. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I making some edits to the article. If you disagree, please revert. Also, comments are cosmetic in nature and should not be seen as an oppose to this article. IMO, this article is very close to FA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't disagree with them :) You are the second person to mention the nature of comments here. I am a little concerned that people may think I am taking their comments as (non-constructive) criticism. It might be the way that I am responding but, please, it is not in fact the case. If something makes for a better article then that's what it does ... and that is why I am here. All input is gratefully received. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative support in terms of prose and structure. Nothing gaping appears missing but I am not familiar with subject matter at all (I just saw the prose praised above and got curious...). Prose is engaging. I have not checked the referencing and might do that later if I get a chance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised that the contribution of one person, who is a relative newcomer and has a clear lack of grasp of policy, can destabilise something to this extent. However, Drmies had earlier raised a concern regarding the sentence in question and I have now removed it. It was useful but scarcely essential. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Support. I see a clear behavior of WP:OWN. I pointed out that Macaulay was no historian and his criticism of Tod is irrelevant. I supplied the quotes and I got hammered by Sitush, Drmies and his other friends that I am wrecking a featured article. Whatever I wrote was undone. Just check the history of James Tod. Now I see they have removed Macaulay but they did not let me edit it. Is it true that only Sitush and his friends are allowed to touch James Tod article? Ror Is King (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of ownership represent an objection about me, not the article. The Macaulay point which you contested has been removed; your edits were expanding the article into an unrelated area and thereby losing its focus, as was discussed on the article talk page. It was either keep the quote or remove it. I've removed it. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The criticism section is blatant POV pushing by you. It is not balanced at all. The remaining criticisms against Tod can be easily refuted too for a balanced POV only if your friends just allowed other users to edit the page. The irony is that I dug up all the counter points against Macaulay and in a very un-scholarly way you credit Drmies for removing Macaulay bit in the article here: [2]. And till yesterday Drmies was pontificating to me how I am wrecking the FA article for pointing out that Macaulay cannot be used to judge Tod : [3]. I am very curious as to what facts about Macaulay you heard from Drmies beyond what I had written that made you attribute the removal of Macaulay to Drmies. I should also point out that just a few minutes I added this in support of Tod as a scholar: [4] but your supporter Joyson Prabhu reverted it because he did not like the title of my edit [5]. Now how am I supposed to edit Tod when you and your supporters engage in an edit war? Ror Is King (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues raised are being examined at Talk:James_Tod#Revert_of_recent_additions.2C_pending_source_detail. There is no case to answer, imo. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The prose is deeply engaging and the article seems to be extensively well-researched, in addition to being well-written. The nominator appears to have taken care of all the issues raised so far. I have been unable so far to find any more issues, and unless someone finds another issue with this article, i think its ready to be promoted! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Tod/archive1&oldid=1142602764"