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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 [1].

---

Seri Rambai[edit]

Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Seri Rambai, a historic cannon displayed at Fort Cornwallis, George Town, Penang. In 2013 the Sunday Times began a feature about Penang with the comment "Cannons don’t often have names, but the Seri Rambai, on the walls of Fort Cornwallis, is something rather special". Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was confused by the suggestion that the gun was made of brass. A little digging suggests that "brass" is a naval term for bronze, a different alloy. (Brass is copper and zinc, bronze is copper and tin. Neither has a fixed recipe.). Could this be clarified one way or the other for us simple folk unfamiliar with seventeenth century ordnance? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Ha! I understand your confusion.The deal here is that bronze cannon (and I believe bronze ordnance in general) were always referred to as brass cannon or brass guns. A couple of years back I wrote a Featured Article about an obscure sultanate in the deep south of Thailand. The sultan's cannon made a long journey from Singora to Ayuthaya to Mandalay, and is now displayed next to the flagpole in the grounds of London's Royal Chelsea Hospital. In an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the cannon is described as "brass". In an another article published in the same journal the author somewhat pedantically points out that the gun is in fact made of bronze.

• I've just dug out the Official Catalogue of the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda, Woolwich. Page 5 lists "BRONZE, commonly called BRASS ORDNANCE". (See: https://books.google.co.th/books?id=X8o_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA5). Perhaps the best thing is for me to add a brief note. Do you have a preference as to how it ought to be worded? Singora (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One more quick reply: see this photo of the Singora cannon at the Royal Chelsea Hospital, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singora_cannon.jpg. The sign describes it as a "BRASS GUN". Singora (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No particular preference on my part, just a clarifying footnote saying pretty much what you have written above. Thanks for the info & pic. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted added: The seri Rambai is actually made of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, but like most bronze artillery pieces is commonly referred to as a brass cannon or brass gun. A cannon displayed next to the flagpole at the Royal Hospital Chelsea shows how this differing terminology can lead to confusion: while the gun is labelled "Brass Cannon (Siamese)", an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society points out that it is in fact made of bronze. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Lion-on-seri-rambai.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both images should have the same license. I took the photos back in March. I've given them a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, but what is the status of the thing you took a picture of? We need a tag for that work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what you mean when you say "status of the thing". Please explain. Singora (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You took a picture of an artwork. What is the copyright status of that artwork? There should be a tag on the image description page for the artwork itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Singora, Nikkimaria -- is this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks like we still need a take for the artwork itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ian Rose, Nikkimaria -- I don't have a clue what you want me to do. The article's infobox is copied from the Featured Article, Liberty Bell (written by Wehwalt). The info for the cannon's photo is as per the liberty bell. What do you mean when you say "the copyright status of the artwork"? It's a photo of a cannon. Anyone can go to Penang and photograph it. Singora (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, so would this tag apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess so. What should I do next? Singora (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, if that tag applies, you can add it to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • How? Adding "((FoP-Malaysia))" does nothing -- the template doesn't render. Singora (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It seems to? 02:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
                  • Yes, that works. I tried editing the other photo and got nowhere. Is this because the main photo (the one of the cannon) is hosted on Wikipedia rather than WikiCommons? Singora (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment taking a look soon (placeholder so I don't forget really) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of para 1 in lead could be classed as a tad informal, but I do think it livens up the text and makes it more engaging (and made me chuckle) so I think it is a significant net positive.

....and left for several years before being coaxed ashore by a Selangor nobleman. - what they had to ask the cannon nicely to come in from the sea...?

I'll go over what the sources say.

1. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), 1948: "Here we must follow the Selangor tale. The gun was thrown overboard opposite the esplanade, and lay in the water until about 1880, when it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage. The account is embroidered by a report that it refused to come out of the water until Tunku Kudin, who had retired from his appointment as Viceroy of Selangor, came to their assistance. He tied a piece of thread to the cannon, which at once floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief."

2. JMBRAS, 1952: "According to a Selangor legend recounted by Douglas, the gun was thrown overboard on the Pluto's arrival in Penang, and left in the water for about ten years. Then it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage, as it stands to this day. The first attempts to raise it from the water are said to have been unsuccessful, and help was sought from Tengku Kudin, who had by then retired from Selangor and taken up residence in Penang. He tied a length of cotton thread to the gun, which thereupon floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief." Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'll pay that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 1950s the cannon was exhibited on Penang's Esplanade - wondering why Esplanade is italicised here.

I think this might be a mistake. I'll change it. Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well overall and strikes me as having the right amount of background for context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose (pending one very minor formatting issue above). An engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but what's the "minor formatting issue"? If you're referring to my use of italics for Penang's Esplanade, I've sorted that out already. Singora (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aah my bad - too little sleep and coffee. all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

• I'm changing "brass" to "bronze" throughout, since a large majority of readers (including whoever edited the infobox to say "brass") don't know that we actually mean bronze when we say brass. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not taking a position on the amount of space devoted to legends or on their placement in the text. That's mostly a matter of taste.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks. I didn't realize this brass/bronze issue would cause confusion, but agree that your changes are for the best. I may need to tweak the note I added a few days ago. I'll do that tomorrow, and will also start reviewing other FAC nominations. Singora (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. Standard disclaimer: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dank. Do you know the term for this point of grammar:
  • "his contributions to British archaeology have been widely acclaimed, with some referring to him as ....."
  • "His arrival at the OS generated some resentment, with co-workers often seeing his post as superfluous"
  • "Previously Crawford had assisted Keiller in campaigning to prevent a radio mast being erected on Windmill Hill, with Keiller later purchasing the hill"
  • "Although designed to have an international scope, Antiquity exhibited a clear bias towards the archaeology of Britain, with its release coinciding with the blossoming of British archaeology"
  • "He refused to publish an advert for Watkins, with Watkins becoming very bitter towards him"
• These and more examples are taken from the FAC nomination: O.G.S. Crawford. I'm sure the grammar here is wrong. Is it? Singora (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a sensitive topic among some copyeditors and linguists. Let me sleep on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For American English, dictionaries (especially AHD and M-W) are best for grammar if they cover the point in a usage note, but I don't know any that do, for this point. The point is covered in Pinker's The Sense of Style (search for "fused participle") and in Garner's Modern American Usage (at ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS). For British English, opinions diverge on which dictionaries are the most helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • This matter ought to be raised and discussed on the relevant FAC nomination; it is not an issue affecting this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Brianboulton)[edit]

There are several issues:

• Links: MoS guidelines disapprove linking major geographical entities such as countries, e.g. Malaysia. Also some of the links here may confuse general readers. For example, the link on "Siamese capital" takes us to "Ayutthaya Kingdom", apparently a quite different entity.
  • *@Brianboulton. Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you; I've just finished reviewing CasLIber's article and that piece about the Northampton war memorial. Yes, "Siamese capital" links to Ayutthaya Kingdom rather than Ayuthaya since the latter contains little historical perspective and describes the city simply as the former capital of Ayuthaya province. The situation here is far from ideal as neither article is especially good, but the Ayuthaya Kingdom article does include this (accurate) sentence in its lead "in the sixteenth century, it was described by foreign traders as one of the biggest and wealthiest cities in the East". Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sunday Times comment: Rather trivial and hardly leadworthy. If you do keep it in the lead, the direct quotation needs a citation.
  • This quote is repeated in the article's body and cited. Does it also need to be cited in the lead? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main issue here is whether this fairly inconsequential statement is worthy of mention in the lead as well as the text, but if you do want to keep it in the lead as a verbatim quotation, it will need to be cited there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've deleted it. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dr Gibson-Hill": Use his full name, not the academic title, per MOS:CREDENTIAL
  • Done. I didn't realize this was an issue. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For clarity I'd use "inches" or "in.", rather than ""
  • OK -- I've gone with inches. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "28-pounder": A pipelink thus, 28-pounder might be informative
  • Ha! That's neat. Done. I didn't know you could do that. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What entity is being described as "Holland"? As far as I know the polity at the start of the 17thC was the Dutch Republic, and "Holland" has never been the country's name (other than during Napoleon's short-lived puppet kingdom).
  • This is well spotted. I've changed "Holland's bid" to "The Dutch bid". The source ([2]) alternates between the Dutch and the VOC. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• principle" → "principal" I imagine.
  • Yep. Typo. Noun vs. adjective. Done. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a rather large gap in the narrative, between 1613 and 1795. Maybe nothing noteworthy happened in this time, but a linking sentence of some sort, covering the hiatus, should connect the eras.
  • The main sources for this, two articles published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, offer nothing between 1613 and 1795. What sort of linking sentence might work? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest few added introductory words at the start of the Selangor incident section, e.g. "There is no recorded history of the cannon between 1613 and 1795, when the Acehnese sent..." etc, Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Almost thirty years later [i.e. about 1825] a British East India Company official visited Selangor and recounted a bizarre tale about a white snake said to be living inside the gun's barrel". This information seems devoid of context and I'm not sure what to make of it.
  • Yep, I just re-read this and it does look wrong. I've removed it. Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a concern that I missed several of these things. I'll go back through the other articles I copyedited on the same day to see if I was having a bad day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but these are mainly not copyediting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton. Hey Brian -- thanks for the feedback / suggestions. I'll reply in full later this week. Singora (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to sources review. Handle my few outstanding points as you see fit. The article is very nicely presented and illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton

Thanks for helping out. I've deleted the Sunday Times quote from the lead and added a linking sentence as per your suggestion. I've asked user WEHWALT to do a source review. I did one for him a while back and will happily do another for his current FAC nomination if/when required. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I still need to finish my review for the Northampton War Memorial article. I'll try to do that tomorrow. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. Actually I probably won't finish the review tomorrow as I'll be watching Trump thrash Clinton. Singora (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I make the following comments:

• Consider adding OCLC numbers for the books lacking an ISBN.
• In the Isranews source, should not the word "after" be capitalised?
• That's it. I did not spot-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt

Thanks. I've edited that Isranews source and added OCLC refs to the three books without ISBNs. Singora (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment[edit]

• Under the "Citations" section, the ref for "Replica Cannon Bombed Nine Days after its Installation" is throwing up a cite ref error; it also shows an error beside the listing under "Newspapers / News Agencies". SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's well spotted. The error crept in after I changed "Bombed Nine Days after" to "Bombed Nine Days After" (per Wehwalt's suggestion). I've just corrected the problem. Singora (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.