Talk:1915 Singapore Mutiny/GA1

GA review

Another nice, informative article on Singapore's (and Britain's) military history. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to pass it though without making just a few comments, so here they are:

"Its members anticipated that Indian soldiers posted overseas would ally with them in their cause, and actively targeted propaganda and instigation on them." This needs rewriting, but I'm not sure what "instigation" is meant to be saying here. Is it talking about inciting to mutiny?

Done. Thank u for your interest & review on this article mate. Yup, it refers to the instigation to mutiny in the former colonies of Britain in Asia during WWI. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A few months after the outbreak of the First World War, the Ghadrites incited the 130th Baluchi Regiment at Rangoon to mutiny, on 21 January 1915. The authorities had become aware of the plan however, and had taken preventive action." I feel like I've been left dangling. What preventive action?

Done. The British authorities in Rangoon taken preventive action by reassigning the affected regiments to other outposts earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Poor communication, slack discipline and a weak leadership, meant that the troops' morale was low ...". Is that poor communication between Singapore and their homes in India, poor communication between the sepoys and their British officers, or something else?

Done. It was poor communication between the sepoys and their British officers and other factors that led to their low morale then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In November 1914, the British government decided to send the sepoys to Hong Kong. The sepoys, however, heard earlier rumours that they might be sent to Europe or Turkey to fight against their Muslim brethren. In February 1915, when the sepoys received orders to sail to Hong Kong aboard the Nile, they decided it was the time to rebel." I'm not sure I follow that. Did the sepoys think that they were about to be deployed to Europe or Turkey instead of Hong Kong, and that's what prompted them to mutiny?

The sepoys thought they were about to be deployed to Turkey instead of Hong Kong, to fight against their fellow Muslim brethen there. This misception was caused by rumours instigated by agents of the Ghadrites, Kassim Mansur and a religious leader, Nur Alum Shah, as mentioned in the article. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Admiral Jerram sent a radio message requesting help from any allied warships nearby." That's the first time that Admiral Jerram has been mentioned. Who was he?

Done. Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Jerram of the British Royal Navy fleet in Singapore. Fyi, the famous battlecruisers HMS Repulse & the HMS Prince of Wales were based mainly in S'pore during WWII, before they were destroyed by the Japanese off the coast of Vietnam in 1941. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A group of mutineers laid siege to the bungalow of the commander, Colonel E. V. Martin." Similar to above. What was Martin the commander of? The British forces in Singapore?

Done. Colonel Martin was then the commander of the British Army in Singapore. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On 23 February 1915 a Court of Inquiry was held, at first in secret, but then continued publicly." I think this needs a bit of an explanation. Why, part through the inquiry, was it decided to make it public?

Done. 'cos of the sensitivities & the impact it may caused to the British authorities as Fortress Singapore was then seen as their prized crown colony in S.E. Asia. The COI was conducted in secret initially (news blackout & censorship) but later publicly when the news of the Mutiny began to spread & was subsequently reported months later in Europe & America.(Read this archived NYT article dtd 2 May 1915 for details). Also to demonstrate 'impartiality' & 'swift justice meted out' in the handling of the case to the local populace, where there was a sizable Muslim population, the authorities had no choice but to conduct the trial publicly later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In order to enhance internal security, the British passed the "Reserve Force and Civil Guard Ordinance" in August 1915 ..." Presumably this is internal security in Singapore?

Yes, it's something similar to the British National Service in times of war but they applied the law in Singapore decades earlier. After our Independence in August 1965, the Singapore Govt made National Service compulsory for males aged 18 until they reached 40 or 50 depending on their rank. Not to be mistaken with another British inherited law, known as the Internal Security Act (strongly criticised by Western human rights groups today), which is used by Malaysia & S'pore to this day in their fight against communism and terrorism now. You may want to read these related articles on its enforcement outcomes: 1. Chia Thye Poh 2. Tan Chay Wa's tombstone trial.

"In addition, two roads were later named in memory of two of the casualties as Harper Road and Holt Road, after Corporal J. Harper and Private A. J. G. Holt respectively." Any reason why Harper and Holt were selected to have roads named after them?

According to my earlier sources used, 'Toponymics–A Study of Singapore Street Names (2nd Ed)', there was no specific reason as to why the abovementioned soldiers were selected to have roads named after them. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it I think. I'm sure you'll be able to deal with these points pretty quickly, so I'm putting this article on hold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work once again. I've listed this article as a GA now. Perhaps soon it'll be allowed to display a little green dot [1]. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wonderful copyedits & support on SG-related articles. That 'little green dot' thingy is l-o-n-g belated as it was a forgone decision made without much hue & cry in various regional Wikipedias ages ago. As such, I've been wondering why the fuss & resistence in English Wikipedia previously. Moving forward, the folks here should widen their perspective by observing the trends & discussions esp in either one of the two growing 'big mamas' in Wikipedia; the Chinese Wikipedia (Simplified/Traditional) & the Hindi/Tamil Wikipedia (if one is conversant), which has a HUGE & supportive user base as compared to the rest in the Wikipedia family. Have a nice day & do remember to have a cuppa mate! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]