Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian independence movement/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Indian Independence Movement

This article is an article which has many useful links to other pages which give a very in-depth and un-biased view on the Indian Independence Movement. 210.84.199.81 (01:55, May 17, 2005)

• I think this is an A effort and certainly covers a lot of ground. It's very close to FAC material. However, I do think it spends a lot of time talking about the nitty gritty of battles and details, and in doing so losing the overview. Since there are a number of links to more detailed articles throughout, it may behoove the author(s) or FAC nominator to do a bit of pruning: condense the details a bit more, and make sure every section's first paragraph explains the relevance of the events of that section to the overall development of the Indian indepedence movement. Otherwise, the reader is presented with a long string of narrative about which riot happened when and who led each, rather than an idea of how each event contributed to a story-arc of ultimate independence. —thames 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I endorse the above comments and add this question: Are the two first sections (The beginnings of the British empire and The establishment of the Company's rule) really necessary. It seems to me like these subjects are duly covered elsewhere and that the links to the relevant article could be put in a See also section. I think it is safe to assume that anyone interested in this article knows that India was under British control, and what the East India Company was. Phils 16:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Regarding the points mentioned above: the first two sections should be condensed to about two sentences establishing the basic point that India had come under British control, and in general the article reads like a cobbled-together pastiche of the "Main articles" associated with each section. It lacks a solid narrative flow and leaves out much that could help provide much-needed context. In particular, what actually constitutes the movement, the activity of Indians themselves, is often missing. What were they doing leading up to the 1857 mutiny, and where did the movement go during the aftermath? The article really only tells you what the British were up to. Then 73 delegates materialize to form the INC, and to the reader these delegates might as well be manufactured out of thin air. In reality, many were already notable figures in the movement and elaborating on this would improve the reader's comprehension. The politics within the movement - who was included, who got left out - also need to be discussed, yet they're almost completely omitted. There's a lot of important stuff there, and it goes back way before the Pakistan solution. --Michael Snow 22:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object -- Its too long IMO, Coming back to the FAC after a week, I'd be willing to make this an FA. PS. is it OK if an anon nominates?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 12:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)