Wikipedia:Peer review/Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860/archive1

Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Back in the early part of the 19th century, a British army officer who had served in India left a small fortune to Oxford University to create a professorship in Sanskrit. His plan was that the professor would help convert the heathen masses to Christianity by teaching Sanskrit to those would be administering British India or working as missionaries there. The 1860 election (and, yes, it was a proper election, with manifestos, bitching and adverts in newspapers appealing to the 3,700 electors) was a clash of two philosophies: one candidate represented scholarship for the sake of scholarship, the other represented evangelical Christian zeal. The Times supported one, other papers backed his rival. Special trains had to be laid on to cope with the number of graduates returning to cast their ballot. The defeat of the better scholar in the election has been held up as an example of all that was wrong with Oxford at that time. It's a topic about which I knew nothing until I stumbled across it writing Boden Professor of Sanskrit for FLC, but there's a surprising amount of material out there in contemporary sources and modern analyses.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this has potential to be a FA. Canadian Paul reviewed it for GA with some kind comments and helpful further suggestions, which I've implemented. I'd like further views on (a) prose (b) content (c) anything else that the article could do with.

Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: A fantastic subject which I will enjoy reviewing. It sort of ties in with an article that I am researching with a view to expanding: Reginald Heber, who was of course one of those in the practical business of converting the heathen masses of British India to Christianity. Enough of him, though, for the moment; this looks like a rare pleasure (I may need a litle time, though). Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Overall an impressive and engaging account. I have only a few relatively minor quibbles and suggestions:-

Lead

• Unnecessary parentheses (while it would assist missionaries). Sort the commas: "...whereas for Müller the work, while it would assist missionaries, was also valuable as an end in itself".
• Should the term "Indian Mutiny" be used to describe the 1857 rebellion? It carries overtones of the colonial era.

Background

• I am very cautious about using Measuringworth updated values without a very substantial health warning. Theirs are theories of current value which, while diverting, often make little practical sense, and often produce absurd results. The assertion that an salary of £1000 a year in 1860 equates in any meaningful way to a present-day annual income of £610,000 is unsustainable. The differences between today's average living standards and those of 1860 make any such comparison futile.
• In a quote we have ""the furtherance of Christian misison..." I think the last word is probably a typo, but with quotations you can never be sure.

Candidates

• "examing" → "examining"
• A small point, but Fellows of All Souls are elected, not "made"
• "chief of British Sanscrit scholars" - spelling deserves a [sic]?
• "Müller announced..." followed by "Williams announced..." Maybe avoid repetition by "Williams declared..."

Rival campaigns

• "Müller set out before Convocation his plans..." How did he do this? Speech, pamphlet, formal election manifesto, etc? What Williams wrote was not strictly speeaking "in reply", since Müller's manifesto was addressed to Convocation, not him.
• Do we know which Bishop of Calcutta is referred to in para 3? The one in office at the time was George Cotton, but there are WP articles on all his predecessors
• 1877 extract: how does this illustrate the text in this section?

Supporters and newspapers

• Overlong sentence, beginning "The Morning Herald said..." Could be split.
• Some overuse of quotes for unmemorable terms, e.g "interesting", "broad", "the academic calibre" etc. As a general rule, direct quotes are best left for occasions when the source's exact meaning cannot otherwise be fully conveyed.

Election day

• Probably not the best section heading, as only the short first paragraph deals with the day itself; the remainde is comment/analysis of the result. I would amend to "Election".
• Watch out for more unnecessary quotes, e.g. the one introducing the section, "Evangelical country clergy", "by most accounts", etc. I also believe that, unless the context makes it obvious who is being quoted, the sources should be attributed in the text.
• "as she puts it" - who is "she"?

Subsequent events

• A KCIE was "appointed" (by the Sovereign), not "made"
• Robinson Ellis has already been defined as a Boden scholar.

Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review; I'm travelling at the moment and will reply later, probably tonight, when I've got the sources to hand. Bencherlite^Talk 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I've adopted most of your suggestions, or tried to at any rate, leaving just the "sic" point as one I'd welcome other views upon.

• (while it would assist missionaries) - I was trying to avoid too many commas in one sentence, so I've split it into two
• Changed to the title of our article on the subject, Indian Rebellion of 1857, or reworded
• I keep changing my mind about such comparisons; I've not seen them insisted upon at FAC and different people have differing views, so I'll remove it. We have the comparison about it being paid twice the amount as Muller's professorship, which gives us a flavour of the value, and a comment about its handsome pay. (Interestingly, the Marshal Foch Professor of French Literature was established in 1919 with a stipend of only £500, and it was still described as "a first-rate chair"!)
• Typo fixed
• Typo fixed
• Others would say that they're born... reworded, it's the right word after all
• "Sanscrit" is used three times (twice in the article and once in a newspaper article title); I'm not sure it needs a "sic" once or more (although I used a "sic" for "Shanskreet" in Boden Professor of Sanskrit!) but will be open to other views. Would you want it each time or just the first time, and in the newspaper article title as well as the text?
• Changed as you suggest
• Clarified that it was a written communication. Changed "in reply" to "in turn", although I get the impression that they were addressing each other through the Convocation, as it were, in the way that MPs address each other through the Speaker!
• Cotton's name moved from the note to the text
• Replaced it with a longish extract from a handbill issued just before the election, which might give the flavour more.
• Split
• Quotes paraphrased where appropriate and I think I've added attribution to all of them in text where needed; let me know if you spot any I've missed that need doing.
• heading changed as you suggest
• "She" is still (Linda) Dowling, so I've moved the pronoun to the start of the sentence rather than repeat "Dowling"
• changed to "appointed"
• I repeated the fact of his scholarship in case readers forgot it. You didn't (!) so I'll remove it.

Diff of my changes. Many thanks for your very helpful comments; I was delighted when I saw that you would be reviewing this! Bencherlite^Talk 23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the changes you've made. Don't worry about the "sic" business - it is clear that "Sanscrit" was an accepted spelling, rather than an error. On Measuringworth updated values, my feeling is that they should only be used in conjunction with a cautionary footnote, but preferably not at all; an observation such as "double the standard professorial salary of the time" gives a far better idea of the extent of the remuneration. At FAC I will strenuously defend the right not to use updated values and there is certainly no requirement to do so, regardless of what some zealots believe.I think this article will do well at FAC, so please drop me a note if/when you decide to nominate. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your perceptive and helpful comments. See you at FAC sometime soon, I suspect. Right, who's next to suggest improvements?! Bencherlite^Talk 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)