Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rani of Jhansi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 June 2025 [1].

Rani of Jhansi

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know much about much of her life, nearly all the bits we do know about have been controversial, and her legacy has been heavily contested.

Still, I hope I've managed to muddle through this mess to create a coherent article on India's most revered heroine. Formerly one of the Women in Green Hot 100, this article has received a GA review from MSincccc and copyediting from Grumpylawnchair; I thank them both for their help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Rani_of_jhansi.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Rani_of_Jhansi,_watercolour_on_ivory,_c._1857.png: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • File:1857_jhansi_fort2.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • File:Sonia_Gandhi_as_Rani_Lakshmibai.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and that may need a different tagging
AirshipJungleman29, has this been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AJ ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've removed the Fair Use image as I don't have the time to figure out how to correct its issues. About the other image, should fall under this US copyright tag. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify why that would be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, under 17 U.S. Code § 302 c), the copyright of an anonymous work "endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". We know that it was created by 1857, so it was in the public domain by 1977 at the latest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, that means that copyright tag is incorrect; my bad, changed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works for US. Because it's on Commons, it should still include a tag for India as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nikkimaria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • Introduce Moropant Tambe as her father.
    • Done.
  • Explain peshwa with one or two words.
    • Done.
  • According to legend, the astrologers attending her birth foretold that she would combine the qualities of the three principal Hindu goddesses: Lakshmi, deity of wealth; Durga, deity of strength; and Saraswati, deity of knowledge. I would move this to section "Cultural legacy".
    • Why? If it's just because of "According to legend", most of this section is explicitly attributed to sources of dubious measure: "uncorroborated popular legend", "British vs Indian sources", "it is presumed", "popular legend". As pointed out in the introduction to "Biography", these legends and stories cannot be ignored when presenting a comprehensive view of the Rani's early life, because it is all we have.
  • If the traditional chronology is correct... I understand there are two "traditional" chronologies.
    • Good point, changed to "traditional Indian chronology".
  • ...the nearby kingdom of Orchha, who had remained loyal to the Company... Is "who" correct in the context?
    • Changed.
  • ...when they were driven off by the raja of Banpur's troops... Why did he intervene in the conflict?
    • We don't know.
  • ...a ruler now seen as a "Jezebel"... Some explanation?
    • Difficult to explain without WP:SYNTH, as the sources don't explain the nickname of "Jezebel", referring to the notorious biblical figure. Removed while I figure out a way of clarifying it.
  • ...in the late 1800s... Ambiguous: around 1809 or 1899?
    • Clarified.
  • ...such as Alexander Rogers' 1995 novel in verse The Rani of Jhansi or The Widowed Queen, Philip Cox's 1933 play The Rani of Jhansi, and George MacDonald Fraser's 1975 novel Flashman in the Great Game, among others... Why is chronology ignored?
    • The first date was wrong.
  • The link to Mehtab is not helpful. Introduce her with one or two words. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Been very busy in RL, hope to return later today or tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, was wondering if you had any more comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Some preliminary comments before I review. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some seemingly unnecessary WP:duplinks, some in close succession, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
    • There are a couple of duplications of links to deities in separate sections, which I have retained; otherwise I think I've removed everything.
  • Give dates in the captions for the posthumous illustrations and the battle image?
    • We don't know when the posthumous illustrations were composed, because their production would have been prohibited in post-rebellion India; added the date of the battle image.
  • Should there be citations for the pronunciations?
The lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability includes "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source. ... Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. ... Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material: ...material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged". So I would say that at FAC yes, it needs citing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as uncitable with my current resources.
  • Link Maharashtrian to something?
    • Done.
  • "whom he nicknamed "Chhabili"" What does it mean? If we don't know, it doesn't add much.
    • Removed.
  • Link Lakshmi?
    • Done.
  • "he turned blind eye to" a blind eye?
    • Fixed by someone else.
  • "after an unknown someone acquiesced" Seems a bit informal, "an unknown person"? Unidentified person?
    • I don't think it's that informal, but changed.
  • "were later found in her palace" Does her palace still exist, and do we have pictures of it?
    • Yes to the first, no to the second (at least where my Commons-searching skills are concerned).
  • "and so she ordered" Is "and" needed here?
  • " and with her adopted son Damodar Rao tied to her waist" why is his full name repeated here?
    • Indian naming customs are not identical to Western; the sources generally refer to him with his full name on every use.
  • " who probably resented her subsequent efforts to increase their force's discipline" this is a bit hard to comprehend, why was that a bad thing?
    • Yes, it is a bit hard to understand, but still today some men don't like being told what to do by women, even if they're right.
  • "welcomed the rebels to the strategically important fort" Not sure the WP:easter egg link is necessary here, why not just name the fort?
  • "At a durbar on 3 June" Explain the term.
    • Done.
  • "both were captured and hung" It seems "hanged" would be more appropriate for UK English, as far as I can Google.
    • Done.
  • "The East India Company administration, led by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie" Need some context here to establish it was a British operation, and to what extend it was related to the UK state.
    • Added a sentence.
  • "Harleen Singh, an associate professor of literature and women's, gender and sexuality studies at Brandeis University" Seems quite a bit too much, why is the University affiliation needed?
    • Don't know where that came from, trimmed.
  • Why are British views presented first under Literature? Seems inappropriate, given the subject. I can see that Indian narratives were prohibited early on, but I don't think that's justification enough, as the British examples given are from the 209th century anyway.
    • I disagree; most of the paragraph talks about contemporary British attitudes, which is entirely appropriate because her prominence in Britain greatly decreased as the 20th century progressed. The current organisation also reflects that of RS, such as Singh 2020, who starts with discussing "Victoria(n) Rani" and only afterwards discusses the "Indian Queen".
  • "As a powerful female rebel, she was portrayed as the antithesis of British society and culture, a masculine figure who played a key role in instigating the rape and sexual violence alleged to have taken place." It's hard to decipher what the part after the second comma refers to; the Rani or the British?
    • Clarified.
  • One often-copied portrait (see top of article) originally depicted her riding a horse sidesaddle, but the lower half of the painting, found in a family home in Indore, has decayed. The other major depiction (see #Early life and marriage) is less immediately recognisable as the Rani, as it only depicts her head adorned with a sari and jewellery." Given their supposed significance, I think their captions should have more context, also so they are better connected with the article text.
    • What did you have in mind?
Not a huge deal, just something to establish the notability that the article body seems to give them ("this is one of the most widely distributed images" etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the film Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi, which was released in January 2019" 2019 film or released in 2019 is enough.
    • Trimmed.
  • "he adopted a young relative" Give his name instead of an WP:easter egg link.
    • It isn't a WP:EGG—the reader expects the link to go to the page on "the young relative" and so it does.
  • "Hugh Rose attacked" Could give his rank in intro.
    • Done, in lead and body. Thanks for the comments FunkMonk; responses above, and let me know if you have further queries.

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow within a couple of days - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a little about the Rani before reading this (the one thing about the Flashman novels is that they are excellently researched and carry extensive historical notes about the actual history), but this is an excellent potted history that I enjoyed reading immensely. A few comments only:

  • Link for raja? I'm not sure it's that commonly known
    • Done.
  • "massacred all the British in the town": "massacred the British in the town" would be both a smoother read and more accurate as, according to the body, "nearly all of them were killed", not all of them
    • Seems to have been adjusted to "most".
  • "Hugh Rose attacked": neither here nor in the body do you introduce who he was
    • Added his station.
  • "or six thousand pounds yearly" 1. Any reason you don't give this as "£6,000"; 2. Would an inflation conversion be useful?
    • 1) is done, 2) is perhaps not that useful because all online inflation conversions (such as the Bank of England's) are based on consumer data from the British Isles; 19th-century India is a very different kettle of fish in terms of purchasing power.
      • some indication of how much £6k was worth would be good - even if compared to the salary of a soldier, or the average income of an agricultural worker - I think readers need to be able to grasp quickly whether this equates a cost of a good meal out or enough to buy a palace in 19th-C India. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after an unknown someone acquiesced" -> "after an unknown person acquiesced"?
    • Done.
  • Any reason you have the capitalised "Rani of Jhansi" throughout but then go with the lower case "raja of Jhansi", "raja of Banpur" and "raja of Scindia"?
    • Literary convention, as reflected in the sources. "Rani of Jhansi" has become more of a name than a title, as compared to the others.
  • "still of two minds": "still in two minds" sounds more natural to me…
    • That is indeed BrE, so changed.
  • "captured and hung": pictures are hung; people are hanged
    • Already fixed.
  • "Britain's then-Queen Victoria": just "Britain's Queen Victoria" will suffice
    • Done.

A thoroughly enjoyable read, with only a few comments, despite its length. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments SchroCat, responses above. Let me know if you have any other queries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could sort out the point about cash, that would be great, but it shouldn't hold up my Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Interested in all women for FAC. I'll look at the lead and infobox in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

  • I am not sure that rani and jara are familiar to the general reader, without any link.
    • Links provided.
  • I am also not sure that she should be called "the Rani" before her marriage.
    • Removed.

Early life

  • I read "Moropant Tambe" and would by the naming system I am used to call him Tambe, not Moropant. How about a footnote?
    • What would such a footnote say: "Referred to as Moropant, because that's how his name worked"? I don't think I'd be able to find a citation for that. In any case, multiple different naming systems are used in the article; who am I to say which ones readers are used to, and which ones need explanation? Do I explain them all?
  • I suggest to move the portrait down to where the name is mentioned.
  • I suggest to mention the adoption before the day of death, for chronology.
    • Done both.

I got reading - without questions - to Cultural legacy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "rani" (=queen) and "raja" (commonly also "rajah"; = king) should be explained for readers unfamiliar with India. (A few rajas hold the higher rank of "maharaja"). She is not a rani until she has married Gangadhar Rao. "Early life": footnote could be useful (Tambe is not really a surname but the name of a clan). O.k. to move portrait and revise the adoption as suggested.Johnsoniensis (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Will read further later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural legacy

  • "This nationalist association continued after independence in media and in education" - I suggest to place "independence" to the front, to avoid thinking that it's only "independence in media and in education", unless that is meant.
    • Done.

Infobox

  • "Rani Lakshmibai / Queen of Jhansi" remains unclear, - Rani could still be a name instead of a position.
    • Reorganised. I liked your suggestion below of "Lakshmibai, Rani of Jhansi" below, so although it is technically incorrect per Template:infobox royalty, I've gone with that.
      • I don't often deal with nobility. It seems that the Duke's article works, - could hers be moved to a similar format? I don't recall any article like "Duke of Somwhere" without any name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • It could be, if an RM were opened; I wouldn't oppose it. The issue is that "Rani of Jhansi" is indisputably the WP:COMMONNAME—her notability in India is such that no one really cares about any other Rani who preceded her. If you look at WP:CRITERIA, "Rani of Jhansi" fulfils the first, second, and fourth bullet points better than any other. WP:NCROY is no help here—it only applies to Western monarchs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to something about her birth even if we don't know the dob, such as one year with a footnote that it could be seven years later.
  • If she goes by a function (Rani), her husband also should have one.
    • Done both.

Lead

  • I'd go for footnotes not only for Hindi pronunciation, but meaning of names and titles in all three bolded terms. We read only later that Jhansi is a territory, which is too late.
    • Not done. I wouldn't carpet bomb the first sentence of e.g. Charles III with footnotes explaining that Charles is a name, that III means he's the third ruler of a series of related political entities, that King is a title for a ruler, that the United Kingdom is a country, and that the Commonwealth is a collection of countries. Same applies here.
  • 2 different links from Jhansi in the same sentence look confusing, - better explain the difference visibly.
    • Good point, rewritten
  • "raja" should be linked or have a footnote
    • Done.
  • "Manikarnika Tambe married the raja of Jhansi, Gangadhar Rao, at a young age" - I suggest to say "was married" as she - possibly age 7 - will not have been active in that process
    • Good point.
  • "the Rani's complicity and participation in these events was and remains contested" - in this sentence, the verb comes too late for my taste
  • "Although her relations with the British were initially cordial, they decided to treat her as an enemy" - "had been cordial"? - suspicion of participation in the mutiny doesn't sound "cordial" to me.
    • Adjusted.
  • "a great heroine" - are there lesser heroines? "great" sounds a bit redundant to me
    • Yes, there are certainly lesser heroines. "Great" is perhaps an understatement if anything—if, as the body explains, you are regarded in the same category as Shivaji, Rama, Krishna, you are approaching divine status in India.
  • "she is viewed more negatively in Dalit communities", - probably my English: to me it sounds like "others were negative, these even more so" - is there an word that doesn't compare? "critical" or something better?
    • Good point, but critical isn't really the right word; I've reversed the voice of the sentence
  • "Rani Lakshmibai has been extensively depicted in literature, most notably in the 1930 poem "Jhansi Ki Rani" and Vrindavan Lal Verma's 1946 novel Jhansi ki Rani Lakshmi Bai, in addition to artwork and cinema." - how about getting the "most notably" poems to the very end?
    • Done.

That's all, - interesting life and afterlife! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have seen this and the above; will get back on the weekend when I can access the sources again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting us know. With just a bit of time and without sources, you could make footnotes or other explanations that Rani is not a name but a title/position (and raja the same) and Jhansi not a name but a state/district. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This problem could be lessened if the name of the article was still Rani Lakshmibai. Using "Rani of Jhansi" which is not her name but an appellation of British origin is not ideal (and it is a title belonging also to the other consorts of the rajas of Jhansi).Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued:- from Newalkar; «Some of the known Queens:
    1. Rani Padmabai (wife of Shiv Hari Rao)
    2. Rani Sakku Bai (wife of Krishna Rao and mother of Ramchandra Rao; Gangadhar's elder sister in law)
    3. Rani Janki Bai (first wife of Raghunath Rao III and his Royal consort; Gangadhar's younger sister in law)(source: Chapman (1986). title. p. 15"the throne: Janki Bai, Raghunath's widow; Krishna Rao, the same adopted son of Ram Chand; Ali Bahadur, Raghunath's illegitimate son; and Gangadhar Rao, last surviving son of Shiv Rao Bhau."{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
    4. Rani Lachcho Bai (second wife of Raghunath Rao III; Gangadhar's sister in law )
    5. Rani Rama Bai (Gangadhar Rao's first wife)
    I agree, - it crossed my mind but you worded it better. We have Elizabeth I, not Queen of England. Other possibility: Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels, which would lead to Lakshmibai, Rani of Jhansi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments Gerda Arendt; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the changes, - I read and understand all your comments, but may have time to reply in detail only later today, going to sing like last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The palace has an article of its own Rani Mahal; there used to be a picture of it in the present article but an editor removed it. Commons has a category for Rani Mahal.
    Re: objection to Damodar Rao in full; it is better to keep "Rao" obviously since it means "prince" (and he is also the heir to his father). "Rao" could be explained on first occurrence.
    Re: Garda's suggestions on naming; the German WP prefers Lakshmibai (rather than Kðnigin von Jhansi).Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "later" is now (because after singing came a longer hike at a place not around the corner, and today dealing with an article about the violent death of a tenor): I replied above. All other explanations and replies taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I won't spend time on the title question, having said what I think about a title without a name. Support for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

"The Rani" is an odd formulation for the lead. I kinda wonder if there are people familiar with Indian history and historiography who could double-check this article. The sources all seem reliable but I notice that only a few seem to be Indian, to the point that I wonder about comprehensiveness. Format seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above for naming—essentially it boils down to "the Rani of Jhansi" being far and away the WP:COMMONNAME and trying to withstand the irregularities that brings. I can ping a few people who I've seen around the topic area of Indian history to see if they can have a look wrt comprehensiveness: @Fowler&fowler, Abecedare, and Vanamonde93: any opinions would be welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic from a period somewhat earlier than I'd consider myself an expert in. With that caveat: "The Rani of Jhansi" is unambiguously the COMMONNAME. But that guideline is about titles, not usage inline. "The Rani" is equivalent to "The Queen", so where the latter would feel awkward I'd suggest we avoid the former, too. I suggest using simply "Lakshmibai", which is her name shorn of honorifics, and is how we typically treat article subjects even when an honorific is included in the article title (see Swami Vivekananda, or Elizabeth II, or Alexander the Great). I lack the time to look at the sources in detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did write the lead of Indian rebellion of 1857, my knowledge of the rebellion does not extend to the biographies of the rebels. Generally, though, I do think that the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the
Indian rebellion page,

In some regions, most notably in Awadh, the rebellion took on the attributes of a patriotic revolt against British oppression. However, the rebel leaders proclaimed no articles of faith that presaged a new political system.

still hold true. The civil rebellion in Awadh is what has attracted the scholarly attention of Eric Stokes and Christopher Bayly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have gathered, my response here is not about the use of the definite article before "Rani," but more generally about the historiography. What I say above means that in Jhansi, which is not part of Awadh, the role of the Rani was not a patriotic revolt against British power. In other words, the roots of Indian nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which led to a successful campaign for India's independence, rooted in nonviolent resistance and led by Gandhi, do not lie in the role played by the Rani. It is a much later, even postcolonial, reconstruction.

I have taken a quick look at the sources used. It is a somewhat unrepresentative collection of the historiography. It appears to transition abruptly from a highly detailed 1986 biography of Lebra, based on uncertain sources, including hearsay, to more modern monographs on current special topics. The middle is lacking. Another way of saying this is that any featured article in this topic area should be pitched at the sophistication and coherence of what high school students are reading in India. See in particular, Themes in Indian History, Book 3, chapter 2, page 262. The point is made there that the rebellion was essentially a popular movement which pressured some leaders of the princely states into assuming leadership, and the Rani was one such.

Perhaps the sources used in that chapter, including the books of Tapti Roy and Rudrangshu Mukherjee should also be referenced a bit; see page 285. This is all I can say during a very busy RL period for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at said sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: supporting Fowler&fowler's suggestion but it looks as if the level of neutrality achieved so far is not enough to satisfy everybody. Of course more Indian historians could be used as sources but this might not significantly improve the article. The revolt at Jhansi became linked to the grievance of the Maratha prince Nana Sahib.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion to use Tapti Roy and Rudrangshu Mukherjee's studies on the Rani has merit, to ensure compliance with FA criteria 1c) Johnsoniensis; I'm less sure about digressions into the rebellion in general. I think I'll be able to do some research on the aforementioned authors tonight. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked, and significant promise is shown. Will work on it today and tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant material to integrate; nearing completion of the draft. Will finalise tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, but Politics of a Popular Uprising is quite intricate... nearly there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Integration has begun. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I have read and integrated three Indian sources into the article to the best of my ability. Let me know if you think that is sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there are reviews of "Raj of the Rani" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I can't find any right now, but Roy's previous work (also cited) has received high-level critical attention ([4] [5] [6]) and Raj of the Rani itself was cited by Mukherjee and Singh in their respective works. See citation [6] for an example of where Mukherjee explicitly builds off Raj of the Rani's analysis. Hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I think that's everything resolved with this nomination, now approaching nine weeks old. Thanks for your patience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rani_of_Jhansi/archive1&oldid=1297928742"