Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political integration of India

Political integration of India

Salute to All - After an intensive peer review, this article has improved in quality and content by over 50% - it is a balanced, informative, comprehensive and well-structured account of the most important series of events in modern Indian history - the story of the integration of a nation. I hope you will enjoy this article. I welcome all your comments, and ask for your vote to make this a Featured Article. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Rama's Arrow 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments' a few cosmetic things before I read the article in more depth, quotes shouldn't be in italics as it makes them harder to read, see the MoS. What is the purpose of see alsos at the begining of a section, are these main articles (if so use {{main}}) or could a link within the section text suffice? Please don't include links in bold text in the opening sentence.--nixie 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I'll likely end up supporting this one once I've read this thoroughly. Some initial comments:
- ~~There is no mention of accession of Kochi (Cochin) and Travancore. I think this is needed.~~
- There should also be no single-paragraph sections (this is evidence of somewhat poor topical organization) — please break up their contents or merge the sections (i.e., if there is one paragraph in a section, cleave it into two more more paragraphs, with each dealing w/ a facet of the section).
- ~~Some slightly awkward phrasing and syntax: e.g., "significantly diverse" — this is binary, a population is either diverse or it is not; these should be easily fixed.~~

— Saravask 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the above points have been presently addressed. Rama's Arrow 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. The nominator and authors have done an excellent job on this. I've read the whole thing carefully and done some minor copyedits. I can see no major problems. Thanks for addressing my above concerns quickly. Good luck. Saravask 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very informative and well-written article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly and well deserved. Some minor quibbles and they would be easily addressed. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-written. utcursch | talk 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well written and with comprehensive coverage of the facts and events of the period. --Bhadani 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well referenced, well written, comprehensive article.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comment~~. It's very good. I removed one problematic POV statement from the lead, but it mostly reads fine without it. One thing I noticed is the only place where it is mentioned the states that did not join India is in the map in the conflicting agendas section. It seems at least a paragraph or so should be dedicated to discussing areas that were not integrated and why. That's nearly as important as a discussion of what was integrated. Perhaps something else needs to be shortened to summary form to make room. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taxman - I'm a little unclear what you mean - in the CA section, apart from Pakistan there is no mentioned state that stayed away - Indore, Jodhpur etc. joined India. The main discussion about the creation of a separation of states from India is in the Partition of India. From the beginning this article makes the impression of taking over from the partition article, in the line of the history of India. It was suggested by a couple of folks to add a reference to Baluchistan and its demand to join India - but this was an India-Pakistan debate and it belongs in the partition article (besides, Baluchistan's main gambit was independence). Rama's Arrow 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From our partition article: "The term partition is generally used only in reference to the independence of India and Pakistan in August 1947, which were created largely along religious lines. Ceylon and Burma were granted complete independence separately, on January 4 and February 4, 1948, respectively." Why were those not integrated into India? What about Bhutan and Nepal? Was there no effort to itegrate those? Why? The partition article doesn't discuss those so we don't really know. If we're going to discuss integration of India we need to discuss what wasn't integrated. I suspect this is something entirely basic to someone familiar with the issue, but the article should include those important bits of context for the uninitiated reader. Is that any clearer? By the way the CA section and it's caption is a bit mangled now. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the "States" section that Nepal became independent and that Bhutan developed a protectorate relationship in 1949 with India. Ceylon was never considered a part of British India, while Burma was split off in 1936-38 I believe - thus they don't deserve mention here. On the whole I don't recommend discussing the reasons for Nepal/Bhutan in length becoz they will require an explanation that spins off into (1) why the Brits arranged for their independence, and (2) why and how are they/not considered a part of the British India, India...? Very murky waters IMHO. I don't want to go beyond India's political integration. Rama's Arrow 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I back including the 1948 map in the CA section, becoz readers should have a clear image of the subcontinent after accession battles. The maps are organized in (1) Un-integrated Indian subcontinent, (2) Politically independent subcontinent, (3) India - Union of states, theme. Rama's Arrow 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taxman - now I feel you're right. Bhutan and Nepal are already noted in "States" section; I'll add a ref to Sri Lanka and Burma. What I'm trying to say is that getting anywhere near Bhutan's and Nepal's nationhood (...why they were not integrated) is unwise; India officially accepted this. Rama's Arrow 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman's points have been addressed Rama's Arrow 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine and simple. I think it was something very obvious to you guys but important to note quickly in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written. Tintin Talk 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- copyedited it a bit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Great work, done almost singlehandedly by Rama's Arrow. There might be a scope for minor improvements here and there, but overall, it's FA material. deeptrivia (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great article, and thanks for addressing my concerns so quickly.--nixie 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written.Jisha C J 12:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. --Pamri • Talk 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]