Talk:Battle of Nalapani

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nalapani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• first glance comments
  • "Battle of Nalapani" is the first battle of Anglo-Nepalese War fought between the East India Company and Nepal from 1814 to 1816. The commander of the Nalapani fort was Captain Balbhadra Kunwar, while the invading British troops were commanded by Major General Rollo Gillespie. General Gillipsie was killed in the very first day of battle. should be The Battle of Nalapani was the first battle of Anglo-Nepalese War fought between the East India Company and Nepal from 1814 to 1816. The battle was fought for the Nalapani fort. The commander of the Nalapani fort was Captain Balbhadra Kunwar, while the invading British troops were commanded by Major General Rollo Gillespie. General Gillipsie was killed in the very first day of the siege of the fort while rallying his men.
  • Numerous grammatical mistakes
  • Various battle headers probably should be made into header 3s and placed under a header 2
  • Note 6 and 15 seperate from refs

These appear to have been addressed a long time ago; reviewer hasn't edited in a month though so new one is needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia

This article contains some content identical to the Anglo–Nepalese War article as demonstrated here. As some of the material was added to the war article in November and then the battle article in January byt the same editor (Manoguru), it would seem part of this article was copied from the Anglo–Nepalese War. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I am noting that the history of the text can be found here Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to address this issue (if this is indeed an issue), since I was the one who entered the section on the Battle of Nalapani in the Anglo-Nepalese War. But since the story was getting too long, I thought it best to devote a separate article for it. (Manoguru (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nalapani/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nev1 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the course of reviewing the article I discovered some issues with archaic phrasing which prompted me to compare it with the sources used. It would seem that there are some cases of copying from public domain sources with minimal paraphrasing. Now while there are no issues with copyright, I don't think the current inline citations are sufficient attribution to satisfy WP:Plagiarism.

I would recommend that this article's author reads Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Of particular importance is the passage which reads.

"A practice preferred by some Wikipedia editors, when copying in public-domain, or free content, verbatim, is to paste in the content in one edit, with indication in the edit summary of the source of the material. If following this practice, immediately follow up with careful attribution, so that the new material can't be mistaken for your own wording.

• Put the whole text (if small enough) in blockquotes or quotation marks.
• For sections or whole articles, add an attribution template; if the text taken does not form the entire article, specifically mention the section requiring attribution.
• In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article."

As can be seen in this version of the article before I began copy editing, the phrase "The division at Meerut was formed under Major-General Gillespie; and it was purposed to march directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley, he was supposed to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward" can be found in an almost identical form on page 13 of Fraser's Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himālā mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges.

Furthermore footnote 1 can be found on pages 86 and 87 of Prinsep as a footnote. True, inline citations are given each time, but it is not explicitly stated that the material is copied from the sources. These are just two examples, but it would explain some of the archaic phrasing in the article. It is an important issue and needs to be addressed before I progress further with the GA review. As explained on the article's talk page, since some text was copied from Anglo–Nepalese War I would recommend checking that article too. I got as far as the prelude section and the comments I made on that part of the article and the lead are below. I will place the article on hold for seven days so that the issue of attribution can be sorted. Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• While it's present in the infobox, the lead itself doesn't doesn't mention the dates of the battle. This information could be added to the second sentence, or you could introduce them to the narrative by stating when the siege began and when it ended.
• "The commander of the Nalapani fort was Captain Balbhadra Kunwar": this is a bit repetitious as "Nalapani fort" was mentioned at the end of the previous sentence. How about changing it to "The fort's garrison was commanded by Captain Balbhadra Nunwar"?
• "The fort was eventually abandoned after its external water source had been cut off by the British. Balbhadra, along with about seventy remaining survivors, refusing to surrender, instead charged out and successfully hacked their way through the siege.": when I read the initial statement that the fort was abandoned the phrasing made me think the garrison surrendered to the British so perhaps this needs rephrasing. How about "After the British cut off the fort's external water supply, Balbhadra led the 70 surviving members of the garrison in a charge against the besieging force and fought their way out"?
• "It set the tone for the rest of the Anglo-Nepalese war": in what way?
• "This battle more than any other established the warrior reputation of the Gorkhalis": this is the first time the Gorkhalis are mentioned and as such it's not clear of their relevance.
• There is some inconsistency in style of titles, for example both "Major General" and "Major-General" is used.
• "...and marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley...": Which valley is being referred to? The Wikipedia article on Dehra Dun states it is a settlement, so if it's the name of a valley as well this needs to be clarified.
• "as might be deemed expedient" seems like an unnecessary and awkwardly archaic phrase. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Update

It seems that while the article has undergone some copyediting, some of the phrasing is still close to the sources. For instance the following extract is from the article in its state as of 2 May 2012.

Once assembled, it marched directly to the Dehra Dun. After having reduced the forts in that valley,[fn 1] the plan called for Gillespie to either move eastwards to recover Srinagar from the troops of Amar Singh Thapa, or westwards to gain the post of Nahan, the chief town of Sirmaur, where Ranjore Singh Thapa held the government for this father, Amar Singh. Once completed, he was to sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off Amar Singh from the rest, and thus to reduce him to terms.[1][5]

It bears a strongly similarity to the following extract from Fraser (1820)

...[The third division] was purposed to move directly to the Deyrah Dhoon; and, having reduced the forts in that fertile valley, to move, as might be deemed expedient, to the eastward, to recover Sreenugger from the troops of Ummr Sing Thappah; or to the westward, to gain the post of Nahn, the chief town of Sirmore, where Runjore Sing Thappah held the government for his father, Ummr Sing; and so sweep on towards the Sutlej, in order to cut off that chief from the rest, and thus reduce him to terms.

Similarly the Wikipedia article says

The fort of Nalapani was situated on an insulated hill, about 500–600 feet (150–180 m) high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep. The table-land on the top is about .75 miles (1.21 km) in length; and Kalanga was situated on the southern and highest extremity of this hill.[9] It was an irregular fortification following the form of the ground. At the time the British entered the Dun valley, the fortification was still incomplete and its wall was not fully raised. The British found the Nepalese busily engaged in heightening and strengthening the fort.[9]

While Fraser says

The fort is situated on an insulated hill,about 5 or 600feet high, covered with jungle, and in most places very steep.The table-land on the top may be about three quarters of a mile in length; and on the southern and highest extremity of this hill was Kalunga built. It was an irregular fortification, following the form of the ground, and at this time was imperfect, the wall not having been fully raised; but they were busily engaged in heightening and strengthening it.

The differences are cosmetic, the odd parenthetic statement has been removed and different forms of names used, but it substantially remains the same and the 1820 source down to the sentence structure. While this is not a copyright infringement because the source is long out of copyright, there is still an issue with attribution. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources states

the ... text [of a source in the public domain] can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)."

While Fraser is still given as a reference, in the article's current format it's not clear that some parts are taken directly from the source; it seems only that Fraser is used as a source of information, rather than wording. As such, I do not feel the article can be promoted until the issue of attribution is resolved. It is slightly puzzling, as in the aftermath section Fraser is clearly quoted, but earlier in the article his work is used without making it clear that he is the author. If Fraser's work is to be substantially used, perhaps using quotes is the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nev1, Thank you for pointing out your concerns, which seem quite valid. These are the old parts of the article which I didn't go back to editing much later on. Since the issues that you have raised are of war strategy and geography, I don't see how much I can actually change the wording without changing the meaning. Would it be alright if I simply put up more citations? or multiple references? As per the Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources

In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article.

I don't think the inline citations are in anway ambiguous, attested by the fact that you could pin point the original source of information. I will however try to resolve these issues. (Manoguru (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC))

Copy editing and suggestions

G'day, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by posting here. Anyway, I've done a bit of copy editing on the article over the past two weeks. I've probably done all that I can now. I don't have much knowledge of the topic, so I have really only been trying to tighten up some of the language that was used. I hope that it has helped in some regard. If you do not agree with some of my edits, please feel free to revert/undo them. A couple of things that I noticed while working on the article:

• there are a lot of block quotes used. I wonder if this is really necessary. Could most of these not be reworded and worked into the prose?
• also, in the legacy section, I wonder if the point shouldn't be made a bit more clearly that as a result of the conflict, the Gurkhas would later be recruited into the British Army. It is mentioned vaguely in the Cultural references section, but not explicitly in the body of the article.

Anyway, good luck with improving this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rupert, thank you very much for all your help. The sentences run much fluidly now. I want to get back to work on this article as soon as possible, but currently I don't have access to internet in my new apartment. Hopefully that will be sorted out by tomorrow. I think you have raised a valid point about the Legacy section. Although it is not 100% correct to say that this particular battle lead to Gurkha recruitment, the overall Anglo-Nepalese War did lead to this effect. I will try to include that matter too. As for the blockquotes, it was just my laziness that prompted me to use them. I think we can reduce some of those. Happy Easter! :D (Manoguru (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

G'day, I've had another go at copy editing the article. Please review and adjust as you see fit. Anyway, I'm not sure if you are looking to take this back to GAN sometime or not, but I have a couple more suggestions. Firstly, it occurs to me that the Aftermath section probably needs a little bit on the subsequent battles of the war and how Nalapani fit in with the overall conflict. Additionally, if possible, it would be good to identify some of the units that took part in the battle. One British regiment, the 53rd, appears to have been identified, but were there any others? Also, there is a "citation needed" tag that should be dealt with before going back to GAN and I do think that it would be a good idea to rewrite the two block quotes in the Aftermath using your own words. Finally, if possible, a couple more images would enhance the visual appeal of the article and would serve to break up the text in the bottom part of the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good day to you! "Aftermath section probably needs a little bit on the subsequent battles" -- That was exactly what I was thinking. The more I study the story of these men, the more fascinated I become. After Nalapani the British soldiers head towards Jaithak, where the story is unfolded in two parts. The same characters reappear -- Mawby, Carpenter, Ludlow -- and they make the same mistake of under estimating their enemy. The result was a sound defeat! I have long been thinking of writing an article on the Battle of Jaithak, as a follow up of Nalapani, but I just don't have time to do so right now -- maybe during the coming holiday season I will look into it. A sketch of that battle is given in the article on Anglo-Nepalese War. Identifying units seem a good idea, but I am not quite sure if readers will be that interested. Princep (p. 84) as well as Thorn (p. 225-226) gives a detailed break down of the British forces. However, it is hard to find the same kind of information regarding the Nepalese forces. BTW, I found that in William Thorn's "A Memoir of Major-General Sir R.R. Gillespie," there is a map of the Nalapani battle ground, and the positioning of Gillespies men during the first attack. But thanks to the incompetence of Google, only half the map is actually scanned. I wonder if it is possible to find this book somewhere else. (Manoguru (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Reasons for British failure

I am not sure where I got this, but I think it is best to keep it in the talk page until I find the suitable reference:

1. The main reason for the failure of the British to swiftly capture the fort lay in the fact that their fighting style, more used to plains, with rigid infantry formations and cavalry charges, was ill-suited to mountain warfare. Against an enemy situated behind by a fortified wall, the cavalry was completely useless, and the infantry, using formations that had been developed for flat, open battlefields where it was important to maintain ranks and dressing, was rendered ineffective by the steep terrain. 2. The men under Gillespie, whether by intention or by accident, failed to obey his order. 3. The strategy of attrition, which to the British seemed a less valorous option, occurred to them only after they had paid a high price. 4. Infantry charges should not have been ordered until the walls completely broke down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoguru (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gillespie's men clearly disobeyed his command, and it could not have been an accident. The plan for the first British attack clearly called for a simultaneous storming of the fort from different directions. It is incredibly unlikely that they could not have heard the gun fire or misinterpreted the signal for attack. Even if they did so, the noise and din caused by the battle should have alerted the troops who failed to take action that the battle has already begun. The worst that could have happened, if they did not really intend to disobey, was that they would have been late to arrive at the scene of the battle, because clearly the officers in charge were aware that the plan called for simultaneously attack. I wonder if there was any legal inquiry made by the British army about this incident. (Manoguru (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nalapani/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have read the previous failed nomination from last year and am aware of the issues raised there. I think that as it stands, although the article clearly draws heavily from public domain sources, this is not obvious from the text, which has been well edited and improved and most importantly this reliance has been clearly acknowledged throughout the article.

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "resources spent to capture the small petty fort" - "petty" is clumsy phrasing, consider removing it.
• Link "Pyrrhic victory"
• " The battle set the tone for the rest of the Anglo-Nepalese War" - in what way?
• Link "Magar soldiers" to Magar people.

• Hi, I'm not a regular editor of this article, but I did some copy editing awhile back and saw that this review hadn't been responded to, so I made an attempt to deal with these issues. Please let me know if my changes have addressed these points. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am pleasantly surprised that there actually is an article on Magar people. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. (Manoguru (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

• This all looks good now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• At the start of the first paragraph of Background there should be a very short piece - two sentences - on why the British wanted to invade. For example it could say something like "In 1814 the long-standing dispute over the border between British India and the Kingdom of Nepal descended into open war. The British East India Company sought to invade Nepal to secure the border and force the Nepali government to open trading routes to Tibet." (obviously this should be edited by someone who understands the circumstances in more detail). This will give the article considerably more context.

• Good point, I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to deal with this, but I will post on the nominator's talkpage and see if they can address this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for this suggestion. I have made the necessary changes, and I must say that the article reads better. (Manoguru (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

• It does indeed, although you need to source it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of Nalapani.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nalapani

Slow and kids sound 182.50.66.29 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)