Talk:Bawi system

Bawi system is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Taitesena (talk) at 05:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Former system of slavery in Mizoram (ab. 1927)

Bawi system was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 4, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bawi system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Mizoram Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mizoram (assessed as Mid-importance). Christianity: India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA toolbox
Authorship Citation bot Copyvio detector External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions
v t e

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bawi system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Taitesena (talk · contribs) 00:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Sorry, but I have to fail the article without further review because it has "cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Furthermore, the article's lead is too short and the article should be illustrated by some images or maps. I suggest you should seek a peer review to receive suggestions for further improvement. Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the lead in and added photos, However due to the niche historical area this is, there is very few media available explicitly on the topic. I have listed British administrators who have taken a role in the adjudication and direction of the Bawi system however for visual representation. Would these measures suffice so far? Taitesena (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article has definitely improved! I would still recommend getting some feedback through a peer review. It could bring up more ideas for further refinement. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]