Talk:Bawi system

GA review

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bawi system/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Taitesena (talk · contribs) 05:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

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:

It looks like this is your first GA nomination — welcome! During the review I will suggest a few changes, but of course you do not have to accept all of them. If you choose not to follow any of my suggestions, I would appreciate it if you could let me know your reasoning. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Taitesena:, referring to your message on my Talk page, could you inform me about the progress? Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies it slipped my mind. I will address the concerns tonight prudently. The likely outcome is that I remove the photo until I can verify its source. Taitesena (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed the image provenance for T.H. Lewin and Lorrain, I however, cannot access the Mizoram State Archives, so I have removed the picture of Peter Fraser until I can contact them and provide provenance, otherwise I will nominate it for speedy deletion. Is there anything else you need for the GA review? Taitesena (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Taitesena: when do you think you can address all issues below? Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Borsoka I believe that the use of the old sources are non-contentious as all the sources in modern scholarship have used the exact same terms. Either way I have complimented new sources into the older primary sources based on modern works which use them.

Sources using the primary sources:

• Hrangchal, Lalhrilmoi (2014). "Revisiting the Boi System of Lushai Hills" (PDF). Journal of North East India Studies. 4 (2): 41–54. Retrieved 12 November 2024.
• Nag, Sajal (2012). "Rescuing Imagined Slaves: Colonial State, Missionary and Slavery Debate in North East India (1908-1920)". Indian Historical Review. 39 (1): 57–71. doi:10.1177/0376983612449529. Retrieved 6 November 2024.

Secondly, photography of bawi does not exist. In my time of research here, the main subject matter, a bawi looks like a normal person, no special appearance and no need to photograph them either. More often than not chiefs were photographed. So it would be too difficult to attach photos of "bawi" per say.

I have fixed the J Herbert Lorrain Cropped portrait as of now. I am not aware of OCLC and what that is however.

Anything else needed? Taitesena (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:J Herbert Lorraine Cropped Portrait.jpg: PD tag for the source country is missing at Commons; could the reference to the source be more specific (author, title, year of publication, publisher, page, and ideally an identifier such as oclc)
• File:T.H. Lewin.jpg: a reliable source to verify the picture is missing at Commons.
• File:Dr Peter Fraser.jpg: could the source be more specific at Commons (a link or an identifier from the Mizoram State Archives); I doubt that a Hospital could be regarded as its author.
• Could you add more images to present the subject itself? Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• Why Lewin (1874), Lorrain and Savidge (1898), Shakespear (1912) are still to be regarded as reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Update

@Borsoka and Taitesena: Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what needs to be resolved? Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Apologies, I have been extremely busy recently. I will be able to resume the review on Monday or Tuesday. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: Reminder ping. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• In the first sentence I miss a very short geographical reference to British India and its exact region.
• At the beginning of the first section I also miss a short introduction to the Lushai Tribes.
• Early British administrators used polyglot officials to extract terminology for the Lushai Tribes. I am not I understand the sentence. (Perhaps, "Early British administrators relied on polyglot officials to develop administrative terminology for classifying and governing the native tribes of northeast India.")
• Bawi was initially listed as a gendered noun known as bay-pa for male slaves and bay-nu for female slaves. For me the sentence does not make sense. (Perhaps, "Bawi was initially recorded as a gendered term: bay-pa referred to male slaves, while bay-nu referred to female slaves.")
• When the missionaries of the Lushai Hills decided to create a roman alphabet as a written language of Duhlien, limitations of the representation of the tonal language led to transcription of the "o" sound as an "aw" sound making it spelt bawi instead of boi. Again, I am not sure I understand the sentence. (Perhaps, "When missionaries in the Lushai Hills developed a Romanized script for Duhlian, a tonal language, the difficulty of representing tone led them to use "aw" where "o" might otherwise have been expected, producing the spelling bawi rather than boi.")
• Lorrain stated... Introduce Lorrain and add his full name. Use present simple.
• Shortly introduce McCall and add his full name.
• Shortly introduce T. H. Lewin.
• Shortly introduce Shakespeare and add his full name.
• In light of my comments above, could you please review the next two sections of the article with a non-specialist reader in mind, and make any amendments to the text where necessary? I would also suggest splitting the "History" section into two or three subsections, and converting the bulleted list into running prose? Please ping me when you are ready. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have made the changes you have requested, apologies for the delay, my exams have ended. I did introduce more context and nuance into what isn't being actively explained. I hope this clears up any more remaining issues. let me know if you need further changes! Taitesena (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• ...who have taken refuge in the chief's house. The chief or a chief?
• ...chiefs would accept bawis in the interest of increasing their privilege and perceived power... Rephrase it for clarity.
• ...the bawi couple will build their own house and will be known as an inhrang bawi I think the use of future simple is not the best choice.
• ...There were several types of bawi. A special type is already mentioned in the previous sentence.
• Inpuichhung bawi means an in-house slave or serf. They would become a bawi by being indebted to their chief during a crisis. This typically included extreme poverty, starvation, sickness, etc. Consolidate the three sentences for clarity and flow, and delete "etc".
• ...these individuals were described... By whom? Is this text necessary?
• They managed to retain privileges such as wearing the chief's ornaments and using his weapons. Could these be described as privileges. I would simply state that they could wear the chief's ornaments and use his weapons.
• Chemsen bawi means red knife bawi.[11][20] If an individual were to commit murder, then the victim's family held a right to kill the offender. The murderer had a right to take refuge in the chief's house. Consolidate the three sentences for flow and clarity.
• Please try to make the rest of the article more encyclopedic by using more concise language, and reconsider the use of the future simple and future-in-the-past throughout the article. Ping me when you are ready. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)