Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/British Empire/archive2

Comment Casting aspersions, the comment the editors most involved with the article seem to have no interest at all in improving it. is not about content, it's casting aspersions on the editors who put the donkey work into getting the article to FA status and have done their level best to keep it that way. A level playing field would be appreciated. W C M_email 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the comment assuming noone (Wiki-Ed?) will be implementing changes detailed above in the near future. is also pointedly aimed at one editor. W C M_email 02:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be watching more closely, posting to editor talk pages (on my way to do that now), and opening an ANI if the personalization does not stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI closed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#25 October 2020, now let’s focus on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved from review page

Keep I have serious concerns this is a bad faith nomination. See [1], there is evidence that this is a sock puppet of the long term disruptive editor [Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter|HarveyCarter] who has long targeted the British Empire page. The claim it was "easier" to pass promotion in 2009 is demonstrably false. As regards neutrality the article is clearly treating the subject in a neutral manner mentioning topics such as the opium wars, the slave trade and topics such as the Indian famines. So the basis of this nomination is clearly to disrupt rather than improve the article. W C M_email 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying issues and addressing them. Also, please note that SPI issues are raised at the proper forum, not at FAR, where our focus is on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we wasting time on a bad faith nomination that isn't focused on content but is in reality about imposing the opinion of the OP. Having failed to force his changes into the article it has been nominated for delisting out of spite. It's a waste of time, if you wish to indulge a disruptive editor fine but I won't be wasting my time on this. W C M_email 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I been disruptive?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is potentially a sock puppet, especially of a notorious ban evader, this needs to be reported for an SPI ASAP. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You actually commented on the SPI back in 2017, here. Alfie Gandon has since been banned as the sockpuppet of a different long term abuser, not Harvey Carter. But I haven't been.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I find this response to my comments really troubling - to dismiss them more or less outright and to attack uninvolved reviewers as being biased is very bad form (I studied the British Empire at university, and have since read fairly widely on the topic). I suspect that we'll be moving to a FARC discussion sooner rather than later if there's no interest in improving the article, and I'd certainly support delisting if the article isn't considerably improved from its current state. @Quality posts here: I presume that you started this FAR as you were seeking external opinions, and continuing your disagreement with the other editor above is also very unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither dismissed your comments outright nor attacked you personally. I've questioned your analysis where I don't agree with the substance, and I've questioned why you've raised these points here, now, rather than on the talk page previously. A FAR seems like an unusually formal way to raise a concern. The exception is your last line - that is an interesting challenge to involved editors and worthy of further discussion. Again I would argue that a proposition could have been put forward on the talk page, but apologies if my response seemed dismissive - not intended (although I have firm views on it and have expresssed them). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article as an uninvolved reviewer in response to this FAR. Please read up on the process here - this isn't a continuation of talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of Tribute and the Balance of Payments in the Cambridge Economic History of India vol. 2

Was it really the case that the British came to India to build railways and telegraph, stimulate economic growth through their demand for primary commodities (which, we are told, it was in India's interest to specialise in given her factor endowments), initiate large scale industry, promote a reduction in land concentration, and withdraw gracefully, after incurring sterling debts which were of benefit to India?

Utsa Patnaik, Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 12 (Dec., 1984), pp. 43-55

Comments by Germsteel

Could people interested in this page take a look at: British_Raj#Economic_impact and offer any suggestions?

There are better pages: History_of_the_British_Raj#Finances, Economic_history_of_India#British_rule or Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

WP Ownership?

Germsteel (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure User:NickD will be rushing in to tell you this doesn't belong here and you should follow the procedures. (The correct place would be the talk page, as with the entirety of the discussion above). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is all much harder because the spirit of the process wasn't really followed - because stage 1 of the process at WP:FAR effectively didn't happen. The issue raised at stage 1 was effectively that the article didn't present the British Empire as an entirely evil enterprise, with the primary aim of killing as many people as possible. If the objections raised at stage 1 had been acted upon, then this article would have had to have been de-featured because it would have become horrendously biased. The more reasonable concerns raised in this FAR were not raised at that time and so the opportunity to resolve them in a less pressured situation was lost. Kahastok talk 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If work is actively being done on the article, we're happy to extend the timeframe of this process to allow for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, it's quite normal for articles to stay at FAR for quite a while if work is being done on addressing comments. I presume that this moved to FARC fairly quickly due to the hostile response to the comments from reviewers which indicated a lack of interest in improving the article. However, this is the third time that complaints have been made that my comments should have been posted on the article's talk page and, to be frank, this is totally mistaken. I have not been involved with this article previously, and have commented on it for the first time here, which is how FACs work. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I don't mean to suggest that you did something wrong by commenting here and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Only that it would have been better if the original phase 1 discussion on talk had focussed on the sorts of issues that you raised. The way the process actually went has meant that some people's hackles have been raised. And by the looks of things they need to be lowered if this article is to keep its star. Kahastok talk 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NickD interpreted my comments that way too (although possibly my raised 'hackles' didn't help). I meant to criticise the process rather than his contribution which I would have rather had an opportunity to discuss. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Can we ask people to stop with the comments about the reaction to this review. People were upset about how this came about, for a good reason, but are now prepared to get on with it. W C M_email 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was out most of yesterday for a medical app't and may have missed something. I am pretty sure that Nikkimaria is likely to be keeping a close eye on this FAR, and she may be willing to consider removing unhelpful or off-topic commentary to the talk page here. We do need to regain a focus on improving the article rather than commenting on contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of FAR erased

Hawkeye7 are you able to determine why FACbot obliterated almost the entire FAR in the closing edit? Could you or someone restore it (I am iPad editing, and can’t possibly edit copy-edit paste that much content). @FAR coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it could be related to the noinclude tags inserted here months ago so that the FAC page wouldn’t stall. When the content is re-added, then the noincludes need fixin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain of it. I will investigate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye … since the FAR is now archived, the noincludes are no longer needed … so maybe it is just a matter now of adding back in the content … not sure, will leave it in your hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FACBot has this instruction:

# Remove transcluded article links and featured article tools
$text =~ s/.+<\/noinclude>//s;

Maybe this is not necessary any more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria and DrKay would know best. But I think this FAR was an exception; I probably added that noinclude back when FAC was stalled and this FAR was getting cut off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unusual case, so I wouldn't suggest making any changes to bot coding based on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]