Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Manekshaw/archive4

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2024 [1].

---

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only two people promoted to the Field Marshal rank in India. I believe I have addressed all the concerns raised in the last FAR and look forward to going through the process once again, hopefully for the final time for this article. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: For reviewers who find the Assessment section too short and lacking on comprehensiveness, please note that I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library and thus cannot access a lot of sources fully & instead have to rely on snippets.

RoySmith (support)

slightly off-topic discussion about TWL access

I'm not going to go so far as to formally oppose, but I think this should not go forward on procedural grounds. The nominator has identified a shortcoming in their own ability to properly research this article; lack of access to WP:WPL. Looking at the requirements, the only thing they're missing is "6+ months editing". I can see two trivial ways to handle that. One would be to write to the WPL folks (who I have found to be exceptionally eager to help), explain the problem with the old account and request that the 6 month requirement be considered met based on that old account. Two would be to wait another three weeks, at which point your new account will meet the 6 month requirement and apply that way. In the meantime, my suggestion is to withdraw this submission and resubmit after you have gotten access and been able to complete your research. Considering that this article has been submitted three previous times over the past six years, with all three submissions being unsuccessful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you wait another three weeks to be able to avail yourself of the sources you say you need to complete your research. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Roy, thanks for your thoughtful and considerate reply. The only source I don't have full access to is the Indian Arms Bazaar 1994 artice, source #141. I don't believe this one can br accessed through TWL too. I have full access to the rest of the sources used in the article, and do think I can research the article properly. The reason I put the note though, is because most FA reviewers have TWL access and expect sources from catalogues there, like Newspapers.com. I don't have access to those yet, but I don't think TWL access is a prerequisite for FA status, is it? I did try to get TWL access over at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library, but got my application rejected within a day. How else would you suggest I write to them? Are there other forums for that? I understand your suggestion to wait, but I don't want to, because I don't think TWL sources are better than open access ones. Also, having two failed FARs for the same article feels really bad, it's not the end of the world but is off putting. But if the TWL thing is a negative qualifier for you, then I will consider withdrawing the nomination once again. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I just entered "Sam Manekshaw" into TWL's search box and got a page full of sources. I see you've used at least some of them (The obituary in The Economist, for example), but quite a number of other sources that you don't mention. Raghavan S. Soldiers, Statesmen, and India’s Security Policy. India Review. 2012;11(2):116-133. doi:10.1080/14736489.2012.674829 has several pages about Manekshaw. I don't see that mentioned in your sources, but they do cite Interview with Manekshaw in Quarterdeck (1996) reproduced in Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation (New Delhi: Manohar, 1997), pp. 18183 as one of its sources, which I see you do use, so perhaps you've already got that covered. My point is that WP:FACR requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and I don't see how you can say you've done that without at least having run a TWL search to see if there's anything you've missed. Samwalton9 (WMF) I see you processed Matarisvan's TWL application and rejected it based on failing the 6 month's tenure requirement. What wasn't mentioned in his application was that he previously edited as PunishedRottweilerAppreciator but lost access to that account because of a technology failure. Between the two accounts, he meets both the time and edit count requirements. Is there any way the rules could be bent to get him access now, so he doesn't have to wait another 3 weeks to hit the 6-month mark on his current account? RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Thank you for this, I didn't know SW9 could be requested like that upfront. I did forget to mention the old account in my plea, maybe if I had, then perhaps I wouldn't have struggled in the last FA. I will incorporate the 2 sources you mention, and if I do get access to TWL then cite all the other sources available there as well. Thank you once again, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Matarisvan: I missed your followup note last time about having a previous account. Usually we would ask for some proof of ownership for your previous account, but in this case since you've only got a couple of weeks to go anyway I've enabled Wikipedia Library access for your account. On a broader note @RoySmith I'm wondering about this procedural decline on the basis of not having access to The Wikipedia Library - I would feel uneasy about us being a bottleneck to future FACs. There are a wide range of venues for doing research besides TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Hi @Samwalton9 (WMF) I agree that TWL should not be a bottleneck per-se to FAC. However in this case, @Matarisvan specifically identified their lack of TWL access as the reason why they couldn't get a source they needed. It just seemed like a problem that could be easily solved, so I pushed a bit on that. FA requires "professional standards of ... sourcing". In a professional setting, if you submitted something for review with a note, "I know my paper/code/project/whatever is deficient, but I lost my library card so I can't fix it", it wouldn't go over very well, and that's really the point I was trying to make. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Now, I've got a review I need to do... RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Roy, I'm glad to share that I got access to the Indian Arms Bazaar Source through the Open Library/archive.org. Now there are no sources left which I don't have full access to. Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Alternatively, Wikipedia:Resource request should be utilised. If an article is not comprehensive, it is not FA status, no matter the nominator's personal position. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi, great idea! I was almost done posting my request there when somehow I thought of using the resources which are part of the ISBN template. As a result, I was able to access the only source I did not have full access to, thanks to the Open Library. As for the comprehensiveness, I should have phrased my words better. I did not mean to say 'I think' or 'I believe' in the first reply, but inadvertently did so, it was absent minded filler. What I meant to say was that I have gone through multiple reliable source catalogues. I have gone through the entire search results for 'Sam Manekshaw' on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and NYT, and cited all the unique content I could find there. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

comments

"Chief of the Army Staff" : be consistent about capitalization. Also see MOS:DUPLINK, "a link ... may be repeated ... at the first occurrence in a major section". I think it should be linked both in the lead and the first time it's used in the body (i.e. under Indian Military Academy). Changed all to lower case. "His active military career spanned ... five wars" is in the lead, but I'd repeat that statement in the body along with an explicit list of the five wars so the reader doesn't need to go hunting to find them all. Wouldn't that mess up the chronological order? Also, all 5 wars & 1 skirmish he was part of are mentioned in the infobox; 4 of the 5 wars are also discussed in the body. I had written up a section for the 1962 war, which was deleted on the advice of Undercover Classicist in FAR #3, because there were only 2 sources and not much detail. Well, as it stands now, I can't tell which 5 wars you're talking about. I see two top-level sections that talk about wars ("Word War II" and "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971"), so the obvious question is "what were the other three?" The infobox should summarize what's in the article, not include material that isn't otherwise there. Hi Roy, I removed the 5 wars mention, is that alright? We know for sure that Sam was involved in these wars but don't have any further details, most of these are yet to be declassified. "Manekshaw was selected as part of the first batch of cadets at the IMA" -> "Manekshaw was in the first batch of cadets ..." Also, "batch" seems like an odd choice of word. Maybe "class"? Hmm, I see you use "batch" a lot, as in "batchmates". Maybe that's just standard Indian English usage, in which case it's fine? I was gonna change this to cohort. Yes indeed, batch and batchmates are common words used for academic cohorts and colleagues. Cohort works, but I found this stack exchange article which verifies that "batch" is the accepted term in Indian English, so I'd leave it as batch. "In World War II, he was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry." is in the lead but not the body. These exact words aren't repeated, but the details of and citation for the award are there in the body. "partition of India" is sometimes in upper case, sometimes in lower case. Fixed. "Manekshaw was seconded to a planning role ... Hyderabad crisis" a military buff might know what "seconded" means, but I don't. Either explain it, or at least link to what I assume is the right target, Secondment. Also, "Hyderabad crisis" isn't mentioned in the body. Added the link. It is not discussed much, but 'annexation of Hyderabad' is there in the body. "167 Infantry Brigade" in other places, you write unit numbers as ordinals, i.e. "12th Frontier Force Regiment". Be consistent. I had changed these to 167th earlier, but for this particular unit, that is just the way they are written by the army, without the suffix. I can still change all these to 167th, what would you suggest? If the army calls it "167 Infantry Brigade", then that's what we should call it as well. It's possibly worth a footnote explaining that, but I'll leave that to you. I was not sure about this. I haven't put in one, I hope that is ok. As a general comment, you are inconsistent about capitalization of job titles. For example, "Chief of the Army Staff" vs "director of military training". I'll leave it to you to find all the other places. I believe I have fixed these. The only time when the ranks are capitalised are when they appear next to a rank holder, as per the suggestions in the 2nd peer review. "Army Headquarters" not clear if that should be capitalized. Maybe that's an Indian English vs. American English thing? Yeah, I also guess it's a military thing. In the lead you say "After completing the higher command course at the Imperial Defence College,", but in the body it's "... to attend a higher command course for one year". I assume the course is one year long and he completed it, but that's a little ambiguous. It sounds like maybe it was supposed to be a multi-year course and he only completed the first year. Specified that the course was 1 year long. (that takes me to the end of the lead, I'll pick this up again later) "Hilla found it impossible to travel any further due to her advanced pregnancy.[9] After Hilla had recovered," This sounds like she was having morning sickness or something and got over that. But looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive1, I see that what she recovered from was giving birth, which seems like a significant detail to leave out. Added. "During World War II, Hormizd had served", I think just "... Hormizd served", but maybe a grammar expert should weigh in on this. I was also stuck up on this, the latter phrasing seemed to be present participle so I changed it to past participle. Is that alright? "Manekshaw's younger brother Jami also served in the Indian Armed Forces." This is mostly repeated in the next sentence. I'd combine and condense them: " Manekshaw's younger brother Jami became a doctor and served in the Royal Indian Air Force as a medical officer". Combined. "Jami was the first Indian to be awarded air surgeon's wings from Naval Air Station Pensacola in the United States." I'm curious how it came that an Indian officer was serving at a US air station. That deserves some explanation. It's also unclear what "first" applies to. The first Indian to get air surgeon's wings, or the first Indian to do that at Pensacola? Also, what year did this happen? Added the year and clarified that he was not serving, but training there. He was not the first one to get air surgeon's wings, but he was the first one to get them at Pensacola. "Jami joined his elder brother" I assume the elder brother we're talking about here was Sam, but with four sons, it's worth being explicit. Done. "passing with a third division in science" I suspect "third division" would be understood by somebody who had gone through the Indian education system, but I (an American), have no idea what it means. Is there some article that could be linked to which would give an explanation? Added the equivalent grade (C). "enrol" Is that a typo for "enroll", or is that just how it's spelled in Indian English? Was a typo, fixed. "Enrol" is also UK English; generally Indian spellings have followed UK usages AIUI but perhaps this is now changing. But the article should stick to Indian usages, I would have thought, whatever that standard is. Does or could the page specify this with a template? --Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC) {{Indian English|small=yes}} can be included if not already. There isn't information about exact preferences at Wikipedia, but Indian English mentions that generally follows British English spellings. So I would guess that enrol would be preferred. Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) The {{Use Indian English}} template is there, so I think the spelling needs another check. Jim Killock (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I already made the changes, considering that in the next few lines, the spelling used is 'enrollment'. Would it be prudent to revise both? Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I can't say for certain what Indian English uses, but the English spellings would be enrol and enrolment. I would expect these from what I've understood of Indian spellings. Jim Killock (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I will make these changes. Matarisvan (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "You've got "batch mates" in one place and "batchmates" in another. Be consistent about it being one word or two. Done. "a holiday with Maharaja Kumar Jit Singh of Kapurthala and Haji Iftikhar Ahmed" Who are these two people? Is the first one, "Kumar Jit Singh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala"? Changed as suggested. "Of the 40 cadets inducted, only 22 completed the course." It's not immediately clear which course you're talking about here. I assume you mean "The cadet course at the IMA", but you have to go back to the previous paragraph to understnad that, so a little context here would help. Changed to 'inducted into the IMA'. "They were commissioned as second lieutenants" I'd end the previous sentence with a semicolon and combine it with this one: "... completed the course; they were commissioned ...". That makes it clear who "They" refers to. Done. "Many of Manekshaw's batchmates were captured by Japan during World War II and would fight in the Indian National Army" This is confusing. How did their being captured lead to them being in the Indian National Army? Added a clarification. The INA was a rebel force formed and staffed by Indian POWs in Axis camps. "was a junior by five years" it's not clear what this means. Clarified, hope the rephrasing is clear and not confusing. What does "antedated seniority" mean? Backdated entry into ranks. Irrelevant bureaucratic detail, don't know why I put it in, removed. "he was appointed the quartermaster of his company", this might just be an Indian vs. American English thing, but I'd leave out "the", i.e. "appointed the quartermaster" -> appointed quartermaster" Done. What does "substantive captain" mean? I'm guessing this is kind of like Brevet (military)?, but it should be explained. It is indeed like the brevet system, added a link to the relevant page. (I'll pick up with Battle of Pagoda Hill the next time) "He saw action in Burma during the 1942 campaign", For starting a new paragraph (and especially a new section), I'd use "Manekshaw" instead of "He"; you can call him "he" after that in the same paragraph. I don't know if that's actual rule or anything, but to me it sounds better. Done. "While observing the battle, Major General David Cowan, ..." I'd run this together with the previous paragraph. Done. "The citation (which was not made public), reads as follows" This is confusing. If it wasn't made public, how do we know what it said? Rephrased. It was not made public then, but released way later. Should this be removed? The chronology is still confusing. I would do something like "While observing the battle on (insert date), Major General David Cowan ...." and then something like, "The citation (which was only made public on (insert date) reads:" I'd also leave off "as follows"; that's implied by the colon. I have trimmed this sentence a lot now, the chronology should be clearer. We don't know what date the citation was made public, so I thought removing this detail would be better as it doesn't seem so significant. "part of General William Slim's 14th Army." See if you can rephrase this to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Likewise with "general officer commanding, 20th Indian Infantry Division" in the next sentence. For the first one, done. For the second one, could only come up with a rather makeshift solution, hope it is alright? "he received the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel" then later, "He was promoted to acting lieutenant colonel". You should explain how "temporary" and "acting" differ. Added a link to the relevant pages. Should I explain these ranks in a footnote the first time they appear? "promoted to the substantive rank of major" as above, the reader will be wondering what "substantive" means. " Manekshaw's unit, the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment, became part of the Pakistan Army.". You link 12th Frontier Force Regiment; it should be linked (only) the first time it's used in the body. "3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF))." defining the short form here is convenient, but why not do the same for other units with similarly long names, such as 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment? Done. Didn't do so for 9th Battalion, 12th FF, because it appears only once. Is that alright? "lieutenant general equivalent" as with "temporary", "substantive", "acting", etc, what does "equivalent" mean? There's a lot of military jargon that many people won't understand. A little bit later, you've got "As an acting brigadier (substantive colonel)" which is similarly confusing. Changed equivalent to status. Removed the second rank bureaucratese. "he told Manekshaw that if he wanted to, he could sack Thimayya", "sack" seems like slang to me, but maybe that's another Indian/American English thing? Changed to fire, is that ok? Yeah, I think fire works better. But, again, that's based on my American ear. If "sack" is the correct word in the Indian dialect, then by all means use it. Again I can't speak for Indian English, but UK English would regard "sack" and "fire" as informal usage, and prefer "dismiss" or "terminate employment". But this is reported speech? What word did Manekshaw use? If he said "sack", then that's better, I would have thought. Jim Killock (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The source says sack, so I have reverted to that. I hope that is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "These posts were very strategic as they oversaw the Chicken's Neck,", Almost all uses of "very" can be deleted. This seems like one of them. Done. (I'm up to Honours and post-retirement, where I'll pick up next time) Hi Roy, thanks for your comments, I'll be incorporating them soon. I have to deal with a problem with the last 2 sections, as soon as that's over, I will make these changes. Hope that's not a problem. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "For his service to India, the President of India awarded Manekshaw the Padma Vibhushan in 1972": give the president's name. I assume we have articles about all the presidents of India, so link to that. Done. " He moved with his wife Silloo to Coonoor" It seems odd to say that he moved with his wife since that's what everybody would assume. This is also the first time Silloo is mentioned; it seems like his marriage should be mentioned under "Early life and family" Also, in some places you have "Siloo", in others, "Silloo". Oh, I see this is covered later under "Personal life and death". So I would just leave it out of the "Honours and post-retirement" section completely. Done. "independent director on the board of several companies ... as the chairman" I think it would make sense to include a list of them. Done. "Sherry had a daughter named Brandy, and Maya had two sons named Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam.[117] Manekshaw's home is named Stavka, as a reference to the Russian military headquarters Stavka, which his daughter Sherry had read about in War and Peace.[108]" The details of his daughter's children doesn't seem necessary, I'd drop that part. Removed. "Reportedly, his last words were "I'm okay!"." per MOS:LQUOTE, drop the final period. Done. "the Army's apex meet to formulate policy," not sure what this means. Removed, this was filler. "The Republic Day celebrations in Karnataka are held at this ground every year" connect to the previous sentence with a semicolon. Done. Link Think tank Done. "General André Beaufre, a French military theorist, had been invited by Manekshaw in 1971 to analyse the war" Which war? I think you're talking about "the 1971 war", but you need to go back two paragraphs to find that. Actually, the previous paragraph ("... noted that the speed of the campaign") has the same problem; it's not clear which campaign you are talking about. Specified that 1971 is being discussed. OK, that's a full read-through for me. I'll let you work on this and then I'll come back at some point and take another look. Thanks for these pointers, I have made all the changes you recommended, looking forward to the next round of comments. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support based on my prose review. I am not familiar with military matters (and especially not the Indian military), but I assume some of the other reviewers will be SMEs who can cover that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Roy. I will ask some military history contributors if they would like to chip in. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I put the resolved comments in a collapsible box, Roy? Matarisvan (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It won't bother me. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Jim Killock (nearly support but further review on hold)

resolved comments

Firstly I would like to say I support the efforts to get Manekshaw listed, I think it is important that Wikipedia features a more representative selection of topics so great to see efforts made to address these gaps. The four paragraphs about his family background and early education seems excessive to me. Most of this detail doesn't pertain to his later contributions. Of course, that he came from a middling social background is important, as is the fact his family had to struggle. I would appreciate other people's views on this however, and I also recognise there may be some cultural bias here; what an Indian audience or source feels is notable may differ from a European or American one. I was a bit concerned when I reviewed this article at peer review on two points: firstly Sam Manekshaw must have a reputation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I have no idea from this article what that is. For instance, regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: Concerned about maintaining discipline in the aftermath of the conflict, Manekshaw issued strict instructions forbidding looting and rape and stressed the need to respect and stay away from women. As a result, according to Singh, cases of looting and rape were negligible. The tone is somewhat self-congratulatory in the subtext; but decent treatment of civilians is what normal ought to be. His contribution seems to be that he ensured professional standards in a very difficult situation, but this isn't wholly clear given its presentation. Perhaps a counterpoint is needed? It seems there were reasons to be worried that the Indian army might not be disciplined for instance. In any case it feels like there may be another story or point of view which is not discussed here. Some more sources, preferably at a greater distance than a biographer would help. At the moment this passage is supported by one biography. The second area of concern for me is the clear tensions between Manekshaw and the Indian government. Or, perhaps the indian government and the military. Why wasn't he honoured properly, or even paid his pension in full for 20-odd years? He was not given a national day of mourning. While this was not a breach of protocol, this would have been customary for a leader of national importance A casual reader will conclude that there was a dispute and ill-feeling, but given the reasons are absent, may believe that this omission is deliberate and non-neutral. Assuming that isn't the case, the reasons should be stated. Jim Killock (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, great to have you here. On the first four paragraphs, I would want to hear other opinions, because people get defensive when too much information is removed. You can see this in the recent edit history. On the first point you raised, addressing it will be difficult. On one hand, it is true that no war crimes should be the norm, but that is almost always not the case. I have not found any cases of such indiscipline in wars, but they are there in insurgencies. Adding them in as counterpoints, however, will be risky. I think the best course of action will be to add a neutral source which supports the assertion of no such indiscipline, say a researcher. Would you agree? On the second point, I have added a brief explanation for the tensions, see the text before the 'national day of mourning'. I hope that is enough. Matarisvan (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) On the specifics of this incident - a neutral source would help, as would an explanation of the underlying concern. On the tensions: the amount of information in the article should reflect the prevalence of information in "reliable sources" - eg news reports. If these were extensive, then a brief explanation would not suffice. The wider issue is Manekshaw's reputation with those he opposed at war. At a minimum, I would hope to see mention of his reputation as to his dealings with Pakistani POWs, if relevant, anything relating to the handover to Bangladeshi authorities or interim authorities, and his reputation as a soldier with the Pakistani military. They would for instance have an opinion as to whether he was a successful or lucky opponent, someone to fear or otherwise. Often soldiers in former wars talk about each other. (And even meet each other. This was frequent with WWII veterans in Europe for instance. I can understand this may never have happened in these cases, but equally that would speak volumes.) However, I would find it hard to believe that there is no commentary on him at all from Pakistani sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, apologies for my delayed response. I will make the edits you suggest, there is an editor trying to do an edit war on a minor issue right now, so I will have to get that sorted out first. I think I can get this done in a day max, maybe through the Arbitration project. Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Some further thoughts There doesn't seem to be any mention of the biopic, or its portayal of him. This is surely of interest. Many articles have an "In popular culture" section, with mentions of any portrayals. I imagine there are others, where he might feature. The biopic probably needs to be mentioned in the lead as well, as an important fact. Removed as advised by Ian Rose in the second PR. Reading Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive2, this seems to be an admonition not to have a bullet point list, but to rewrite and possibly incorporate into "legacy" rather than an instruction to delete to content wholesale. (On a general point, the Peer reviews are not linked from the talk page which makes it hard to find them.) --Jim Killock (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Getting the exact edit will be a little tough because I tend to club edits. We could ask Roy, who is a part of this FAR, about what he thinks of the need for a pop culture section. It was never a part of the lead. Ian's words, verbatim, were: "I'd consider ... dropping the popular culture section entirely". Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) I think he meant remove the "section" rather than "remove all the content": See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which advises on the pitfalls of these and gives advice on how they can work well. (Spoiler alert: bullet point lists fare badly; prose much better) … Agree with Schro -- as well as putting in prose, I'd consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. So not "delete", but "move". As for inclusion in the lead, that's a judgement call, but it's just a fact that it will be in people's minds right now, but to my mind gives context to his perceived importance. Jim Killock (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) In general, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections. I do note, however, that George S. Patton does include a list of (the many) movies about him, without going into detail about any of them. I have no strong opinion either way. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Sections is less important than what's notable and included. Fictional depictions are an indication of cultural significance beyond his actions within his lifetime, and issuing a biopic in particular gives him additional cultural valance. Of course, if they were low budget flops, that would be a different matter. Jim Killock (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Should we wait for Ian's final opinion? If he sees the mention, he will reply soon enough. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Up to you, @Ian Rose was pretty clear: consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024. Nobody has recommended deleting it. Where you put it tho is a matter of preference. The recommendation was to incorporate it in the legacy section. Jim Killock (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Reincorporated. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Hi guys, Jim had it right, my intent was that the content of the In popular culture section could be incorporated in the Legacy section, not necessarily removed entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Manekshaw's standing with the Indian government seems to be mixed in with their hollowing out of the independence of the Indian military and suggestions of graft at high levels. As Manekshaw was quite vocal about bad practice, and his reputation lies on his challenging the political powers of the time over how to intervene miltarily, it seems he was not looked on favourably. If this is the case, and there are sources that explain this, it should be stated in the later life section. Don't think there are reliable sources for this, adding would be original research. In India, such issues don't tend to be discussed and are swept under the carpet. I've added the only instance I could find, which is the Karan Thapar article. The Wire.in Why the Narrative on Manekshaw – India’s Uncrowned CDS – Is Captivating Military Veterans Now also gives interest from the current military ranks, and context to the relationships between state and military, eg, since his departure "operational objectivity had steadily degenerated, to the point of vanishing, replaced regrettably, by a services-politician nexus guaranteeing reciprocal benefit" and cites an essay "Roots of moral decline in the armed forces" by Admiral Prakash explaining the situation in some detail. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) There are similar points made at India Today: He was infamous with the country’s bureaucracy and held no high opinion of the politicians. He made his dislike public and was often quoted as disapproving of the political elite. At a public function, he declared politicians as being illiterate. He said, “I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla— although a great many in the past have resembled the latter.” Not surprisingly, there was little love lost between Sam and the political bosses, who ultimately had their revenge. And A thorough gentleman, Manekshaw made it a point to never offend the leaders, instead choosing humour to coat his obvious dislike. The sarcasm, however, never escaped the politicians, especially Indira Gandhi. Naturally, he received a cold shoulder from the bureaucracy post his retirement. These seem to explain the tension pretty adequately, from reliable sources. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Added both sources. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) yes but the points about using sarcasm to manage Indira Ghandi and others, and her particular distate for it, has not been incorporated. What was your reason for that? --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Nor are the points about operational issues after his departure incorporated, and the current interest in Manekshaw from the POV of military reform is also still absent. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) At the current moment, where is the interest coming from? There is some suggestion that it is linked to a general rise in Indian nationalism or national feeling, but I haven't made a detailed investigation. The reason you mention + more Indians getting internet services + the biopic. From English langage mentions of Manekshaw that I could find from Pakistani writers, they were quite positive about him. They were not the best sources tho, eg Quora, but if better sources could be found, this would be useful information to include. I have used some Pakistani sources, the most notable one being RM Hussain for the doctrine subsection. I am adding one more for the reasons you suggest. Bangladeshis don't discuss him much, because, I shouldn't say this, but they are ungrateful. This is pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that there is bitterness that the Indian intervention came quite late, on Manekshaw's advice that it was militarily unwise. Meantime there were mass murders of the Bangladeshi elite. So it would be understandable if, from a Bangladeshi perspective, Manekshaw was not seen as an altogether positive figure. Again, if sources exist to enunciate Bangladeshi perspectives on events or his role, this would be helpful to reach FA status. What I can find so far is the opposite of what I speculated: Bangaldesh did honour him at his death, according to the Economist. That would be worth a mention. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Jim Killock (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Some more observations from the international obituaries (Guardian, NY Times, Economist): One or two mention that he was a "Parsi over-achiever"; this would be worth mentioning (presumably the minority group is associated with focus on success) This does feel a little embarrassing as a Brit in post-Imperial Brexit Island to raise, but several draw attention to his adoption of British habits like drinking whiskey and his handlebar moustache "as was common in his generation"; it does seem to have been part of the personality he projected so probably needs a mention I wonder if a "character" section in the legacy / assessment section would help regarding some of the questions I've raised and can be found in the obituaries linked? eg, his sarcasm, his disrespect for politicians, etc.:::::Jim Killock (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I don't know if we should have such a section. I have thought about it and it seems to be polarising. Some reviewers want such a section but others are irked by even a sentence of such qualitative details which cannot be conclusively confirmed. I would like to hear from @RoySmith on this, we could then make a decision on consensus if that is ok with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Structure is not the issue; it can be included in Legacy if preferred. the point is that his personality is not much discussed, it has to be inferred, but from the obituaries his very strong personality and personal skills in dealing with very difficult politicians etc come across loud and clear. I can't see how FA could be reached without this information, it seems central to who he was and why he succeeded. I suspect the reason that reviewers are "irked" is because of the tone or presentation of the remarks. It is easy for these to come across as fawning, or hero-worship, so they have dealt with it as a style rather than content issue. But if the sources are clear and in consensus about certain things in his character, then FA criteria require neutrally presented descriptions, AFAICT. Happy to have opinions tho. For ease of discussion, this is the kind of thing what I would expect from my reading and could easily be referenced: Manekshaw was charismatic, and known to be capable of charm. He was often described as a gentleman. Like others of his generation, his background in the British army gave him a fondness for some English habits, such as drinking whiskey and wearing his handlebar moustache. His background as a Parsi is sometimes attributed as a factor in his ambition and success. He commanded great loyalty from his troops, due to his reputation for personal bravery, fairness and his avoidance of punishments. He came into conflict with politicians, however, because he stood up to their often unreasonable or unethical demands. They also disliked his popularity as they feared the possibility of a military coup. He dealt with politicians' demands through sarcasm, which however was recognised by figures such as Indira Ghandi. (I know bits of this are now mentioned.) Jim Killock (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Added, though rather verbatim, except for the Parsi line, which I couldn't find a source for. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The Print.in mentions that Manekshaw was disliked for his humane treatment of the Pakistani soldiers, and was told off in cabinet for treating them like "sons in law". This seems worth a mention, and further shows the tensions between him and the political elite. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This is still missing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Also important context on this point, the Pakistani POWs remained in captivity for several years. See Willem va Schendel 2009, A History of Bangladesh, p. 172. It seems the Pakistani POWs were kept as prisoners as a bargaining chip by Indira Ghandi's government until Pakistan had recognised Bangladeshi independence. That is also important context regard why pressure to treat them badly could have existed, and why it was important and exemplary behaviour from Manekshaw to resist these calls. See The History of Pakistan, I. H. Malik (2008) p163-4 This is still missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) ThePrint.in article links to a Youtube interview of Manekshaw by his grandson which seems particularly helpful for the external links section. This is still missing, but not essential. If it's not being included, please indicate why. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The same video gives his account of his welcome by Pakistani military authorities and soldiers who seemed to hold him in high regard given the way he organised facilities for them as POWs. More on this would be helpful from secondary sources if possible. Although it may be surprising for a reader that these are so positive, it is important to get non-Indian perspectives on him in, as they will exist, whatever the contents of those assessments may be. This is missing. I imagine it may be hard to get a source for this but please let us know if you have tried to find one. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) I have found one but it barely references the POWs and mostly talks about Tikka Khan. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Just to reiterate, assessment of all available sources is the key to FA status. Omitting information is possible at GA, but FA as you know requires that is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; and well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. This is IMO the trickiest part of an FA review, especially where the reviewers are not experts on the subject matter, and why I'm taking a bit of time to get my head around what is out there. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I have added the detention of the POWs to the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Several of the background points are missing tho, so full context is missing. I'm happy to make some light edits so you can see what I think is needed, if that is easier. Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Hi Jim, I am afk for some time, but I will make these edits in the evening. I had come across these sources but was not sure if I should include them, I will do so now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) No problem. What I would be looking for is that the conflict between Manekshaw and the Indian bureaucracy and Indira Ghandi is well described, as this is clear in the sources, and that this is linked to his later treatment. Likewise, a better description of his character and personality (charismatic, principled, using sarcasm and humour to get around those with authority over him). he's clearly a very powerful figure who is also getting a lot of hero worship as a victor at war, but to me the real thread that runs through his career is that his heroism standing up to people making bad, immoral, unethical or self-interested decisions was rewarded by snubs from the government - which he equally didn't really care about, compared to sticking to his principles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) I have added the conflict with the bureaucracy to the article. I will add the personality part too, perhaps later today. Matarisvan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) JK: Reflection so far: better transparency and communication needed I'm a bit concerned that a lot of the points I've raised have been either partially dealt with, rather than wholly dealt with, and the reasons for this aren't being made transparent. For example: I asked for the "culture" items to be restored; see the previous mentions, and I was told this was done. The film was added back, but the mention of Salman Rushdhie / Midnight's Children's chapter on Manekshaw was not. There was a third mention of a documentary, which I can't judge the relevance of. I added Rushdie back onto the page. It's not great to have to check on the quality of the changes in this way. It would be better if the editors could explain what they had / had not included and why. Indira Ghandi's cabinet appear to have suggested to Manekshaw that he treat Pakistani POWs worse, to hasten Pakistan towards signing a peace agreement, accusing him of treating them like "sons in law"; which Manekshaw rightly and courageously resisted. While other adjustments to mention the episode were added, these details haven't been actioned, and there isn't explanation for which bits around this episode have been omitted and which kept. This is making the work and progress on this FAR a lot slower than it needs to be. There's naturally some to and fro and differences of opinion on what is or is not included, but it's important we are transparent with each other about our reasoning for edits and omissions. At the moment, I am having to check the page itself to find out what has been done out of a suggestion, and then come back to ask why certain items were omitted. If the reason is that inclusion of certain material relating to Manekshaw's controversies will cause future edit wars, then I think we need to think about a strategy around that, rather than omit the material. The article cannot reach FA status without being a comprehensive account based on all sources. If this is the issue and is currently unsaid, then we are not helping each other. If it's simply difficult to understand my suggestions, or how to action them, then I'm also really happy to help, including by directly editing the page. All that said, I don't think that the work to get this to FA is impossible and I think objectively Manekshaw deserves that attention from WP's editors, and I would like for the page editors to get to that point. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Hi, the omissions were not intended, I must have skipped over them, I have added them now. My apologies that you had to get to it yourself. I believe all of the issues are now sorted. Would you agree? Matarisvan (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) OK, thank you, but we do need to take care over this. I'll go through and make copy edits to the changes and see where we are. Jim Killock (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Thanks for making those changes, I've made some light edits around them, mostly for style and to avoid some repetitions. From second round: "During this period, there were suspicions that Manekshaw would lead a coup and impose martial law." Was it just the Americans who held this suspicion? Who within the Indian government felt this? If we know, we should name them. Done. Note my comment above re "fire" and "sack". Sources say sack, which I have reverted to. Thanks --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

JK New comments

Some other things I've picked up:

• is it the case that army personnel were diverted to building projects in the lead up to the China war? If so this feels like important context regarding the army's poor performance.
  • Would this be relevant here? (Sorry if this question comes across as rude). Sam could not participate in the war anyways so would we not just be adding important but unnecessary detail?
    • I think it helps explain the chaos he had to sort out, so I would say yes, it probably is. If he did object to it (as the movie implies) more so. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Could not find a good source for this, most ones I found were forums and blogs.
• is it the case that underfunding of the military before the Bangladeshi intervention added to unpreparedness? If so that would be important context.
  • I have alluded to this but specific references are not available because this is kind of an unspeakable well known secret. The allusion is in the Procurement sub section, "urgently procure equipment".
    • I see, so no sources presumably.--Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      • No good sources, yes. Most are informal forums and blogs, would not qualify as RS.

After that, I think it would be helpful to have someone look at the article from a copyediting and structure perspective. Although perhaps you have some checking to do with new sources. At some point the lead should be looked at and some of the points about his personal qualities and conflict with the bureaucracy and politicians mentioned. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree on all points except including the personality in the lead. I apologise if this comes across as whataboutery, but the Douglas MacArthur artice we have used as a reference here has multiple paragraphs on his personality but doesn't mention any of these details in the lead. In comparison, we have a relatively smaller paragraph in this article on Sam's personality.

• That's not a deal breaker for me so long as someone takes a look. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

For me the next step is to take a rest and think if I have time to skim a biography cited, or similar. As mentioned my objective here is to at least understand the topic well enough to feel that the right information seems to be included. If there are any Mankeshaw / Indian recent history experts out there, I am certain they could do a better job than me however. I'd add that Manekshaw is relevant from a political as well as military history perspective, and so far it has been the political side that has needed some improvement, and thank you for making those that I have spotted. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, as always, for your comments. Looking forward to more of them once you have gone through a bio. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Jim, I've added something interesting which I just came to know of. You should take a look at it, meanwhile can we put the above comments in the collapse box? Matarisvan (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JimKillock, I think you missed this. Matarisvan (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll reorganise this a bit. And yes I did see your addition which looked interesting thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @JimKillock, apologies for the ping, I gather that you are busy so I moved the comments myself, is that alright? Also, what are the next steps, have you found any more pointers? Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there, I'll do this myself so I am sure of what is and is not resolved. On next steps it depends when I have some time at the British Library; perhaps this week, but otherwise in 2-3 weeks time. If any other reviewer wants to commence work meantime that would be a good idea! I am expecting to check for possible missing, important and referenced points when I do. Jim Killock (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, reverted the collapse box to its original state.

Source review - Fail

• Will do this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• There are a lot of problems with the sourcing formatting here, which should have been sorted out before FAC. I have not done a full spot check yet (I'm waiting for the sources before making a proper start, but the one quick check I have done has shown the same problems I flagged up at PR. At the moment I am leaning towards a fail, but I'll hold off until I can do the spot checks properly to see the scope of the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm still on the formatting part and I'm going to call this for a fail now. The sources are a mess of inconsistencies that should have been sorted prior to FAC and although some have been sorted, it's only been piecemeal. Some of these are just sloppy errors: FN 20 is "Brig. Behram Panthaki (Retd.); Zenobia Panthaki (15 November 2021). "Sam Manekshaw: The legend lives on – Seniors Today". Archived from the original on 6 January 2024. Retrieved 6 January 2024.": you have Seniors Today as part of the article title, but it isn't: it's the name of the website. This should have been done way before this hit FAC - if you had a little more patience at PR and waited for more people, rather than closing too quickly, it may have been noticed and picked up on, as would many of the other problems.
  I pointed out some problems at PR that were not sorted properly, and there are points I have made where the examples are cleared up, but not the remainder of the issues. A reviewer should not have to raise the same point three or four times for the nominator to get the job done (eg getting the case and capitalisations correct, which is a basic point for FAC and still hasn't been sorted). The point I raised at PR about the sources not supporting the text in all places is still an issue (in the very quick look I've had, at least, which shows major problems), which is a no-no. I selected two paragraphs at random and one of the sentences I flagged up at PR as a problem; all three are still problematic:

• The point raised previously at PR:

"The general pinned his own Military Cross ribbon on Manekshaw on the battlefield": not supported by the text, which says "awarded the Military Cross for gallantry. The medal was given to him on the spot by Major General Cowan"

• The following paragraph carries one citation, for Singh, pp 93-97. The entire situation is covered on page 93, but I suspect there may be something at the end of 92 as well (I can't see that page). Pp94-97 are not needed on the citation. Everything in red is not covered in the Singh citation (The opening sentence may be on page 92, but I need a copy of that one).

"At the end of 1947, Manekshaw was posted as the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF)). Before he had moved on to his new appointment, on 22 October, Pakistani forces infiltrated Kashmir, capturing Domel and Muzaffarabad. The following day, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, appealed for help to India. On 25 October, Manekshaw accompanied V. P. Menon, the secretary of the States Department, to Srinagar. While Menon was with the Maharaja, Manekshaw carried out an aerial survey of the situation in Kashmir. According to Manekshaw, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on the same day, and they flew back to Delhi. Lord Mountbatten and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru were briefed, where Manekshaw suggested immediate deployment of troops to prevent Kashmir from being captured"

• The next paragraph shows the same problems. Again, all the information is on page 93 and not pp 93-97:

"On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were sent to Kashmir to defend Srinagar from the Pakistani forces, who had reached the city's outskirts. Manekshaw's assignment as the commander of 3/5 GR (FF) was cancelled, and he was posted to the MO Directorate. As a consequence of the Kashmir dispute and the annexation of Hyderabad (code-named "Operation Polo", also planned by the MO Directorate), Manekshaw never commanded a battalion. During his term at the MO Directorate, he was promoted to colonel, then brigadier. He was then appointed the first Indian director of military operations."

Matarisvan, you've put in a lot of work on this article, but you need to slow down and do some basic (and very boring) stuff slowly and properly if this is going to pass FAC next time. Every piece of prose between one citation and the next needs to be supported by the end set of citations, and it's not (and it's also not OK to copy out the same page ranges such as pp 93-97 across multiple uses: citations must be limited to the information they support). I suspect the other parts of the article I haven't got access to the sources for also have the same problems. I'm sorry, but this is a source review fail. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But these are all relatively minor issues, just page numbers, case consistency and other minor errors which I did not add but did indeed overlook. I can get them addressed very quickly, max within a day, min within hours. Would you be open to change your oppose to support at some point down the line, after the required work is done? Please note that I did address the sourcing issue and did not indeed change citations with more page numbers than needed to be on the safer side and hedge, but is that too unmitigable an issue? Matarisvan (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed case consistency by changing all titles to First Word Caps. I have also fixed the page number issue you have raised, both for the specific text and also for all citations using more than 2 pages. The only point which is not cited is Maharaja Hari Singh being the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which can do without a citation if someone clicks over to the article linked. You should take another look now. I also believe this is too quick a fail for such a small issue, would @JimKillock and @RoySmith like to weigh in on this, now that the requisite changes are done? Matarisvan (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to withdraw the fail partly because I don't think you are taking on board either what I am saying or what needs to be done with the article. You have, again, tidied up some of the examples without looking into the problem further. Firstly, you can't say "which can do without a citation if someone clicks over to the article linked": all information (outside WP:SKYISBLUE) needs to be supported. Secondly I have spot checked only three paragraphs and found problems in all three. Fixing those does not make the problem go away. You need to go through the article sentence by sentence, word by word and check to see if every piece of information is contained in the citation. If it isn't, it needs to either be removed or cited. This is not a job that can be "addressed very quickly, max within a day, min within hours". If it's not done at the point of writing it can be a slow and boring job to get it right. That needs to be done before FAC, not during. You have twice referred to this as "minor": it's not. Sourcing problems are a major issue and they run throughout the article. I'm sorry, but it needs to be done properly outside the FAC process. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I did understand your pointers and I implemented them too. Perhaps you did not check the diff, I did not just resolve the example issue you had raised, I also removed two faulty cites: Sinha 1992 (217-224) and Singh 2005 (237-259). I am going to remove Singh 2002 and Panthaki & Panthaki 2016 because I do not have access to those 2 sources right now, and incorporate new sources. Also, I did write a significant portion of the article, when I got here the only citations were mostly SFNs, since then I have added multiple new single use sources. As a result, most if not all of the problems are with the SFN citations, some of them I have addressed and the others I will be removing. I do believe I can get this done within a day, because there are only 13 of these SFN citations I have to replace, the other single use citations are ones I put in the article. Also, the sourcing issues you have raised till now (in the PR & FARs) have all been due to SFN citations which were present before I started editing the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course I checked, but the 'fail' still stands. I strongly suggest you don't remove sources - that will only worsen the situation. Your best course of action would be to withdrawn and (as I've said above a couple of times now), slowly and carefully go through each individual sentence and check it is supported by the source. It doesn't matter when the problems were added to the article: you are the one who has nominated it and—if you want it to get to FA status—you are the one who will have to sort out the errors. The best place to do this is not rushing through it at FAC, but spending time and care in getting it right and then returning.

I think I've said all I can and given all the advice I can, so I'll step away from this now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is on the mark. Whether we create an article from scratch or take it over when it's mature, we're responsible for all the referencing when it comes to FAC, or any other review. This requires the nominator to check all citations for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing or plagiarism so it can withstand reviewer scrutiny. That's something that needs to take place outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this to allow that to take place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

• What is your rationale for having eleven of the sources split out into a Bibliography section and the rest in with the references?
  • I put the sources which are cited more than once into the Bibliography section. The 4 Indian Army List books were already in the bibliography so I did not remove them.
    • There are other sources that are used more than once. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Added them into the bibliography. Matarisvan (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
        • But are all the Army Lists used more than once? You need to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

          Moved the 2 Lists used only once out of the bibliography and converted those into normal citations instead of using the sfn template. Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Check the alpha order on the Bibliography section
  • I am new to the alphabetical ordering conventions, so I do not know them well. Should I order by surname or first name?
    • Order by surname - 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Another dumb question from me - would the Indian Army Lists stay up top as they don't have specific authors, or would they go somewhere in the middle, say after Falki 2022? Matarisvan (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
        • List alphabetically as “Army” - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• The capitalisation is inconsistent, with some sources in sentence case, others in First Word Cap format and at least two citations in ALL CAPS. In the First Word Cap format uses, some words are capitalised that shouldn't be ("To" (109), "Of" (99, 145 and 158) are four such examples)
  • Rewrote the Allcaps references, as well as the four erroneous ones identified.
    • Those are examples only. You need to go through all of them and check: there are still a lot of problems. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Will do Done. For clarification, the cases used here are auto populated, so the ALLCAPS or first word caps titles were used by the source and thus copied here.
        • Not done, and you shouldn’t leave the titles as auto populated. Every book should be formatted consistently (and there are at least two books that are done in sentence case); every journal should be formatted consistently and ditto for every news source and every web reference. At the moment there are disparities in each of these groups. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• ISBN formats are inconsistent
  • Changed all (hopefully I didn't miss any) to the XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X format.
• pp. -> p. on the following FNs: 25 and 27,
• p. -> pp. on the following FNs: 59, 147
  • Both of these changes have been done.
• FN 42 (Falki) – page number? (And can you send me a scan of that page too, please)
  • I will have to check my copy, the Google Books upload doesn't have page numbers.
    • Removed this source, was only being used once and I found a better source to use instead. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• You don't need archive details for books (better to link directly to Archive.org, rather than Google)
  • The archive.org links to the books were added as a result of an Internet Archive Bot edit, I have removed all these for the books.
• FN 108: you don't need to say it's "1. publ ed"
  • Done. This was auto populated by the citation tool.
• For some books you show the publisher location; for others you don't – you should be consistent in your approach
  • Removed publisher location in all instances.
• FNs 117 and 118: The Press Trust of India are not the authors. If no author is shown, leave it blank
  • Done.
• Be consistent whether you link newspaper names or not (For example, The Times of India is linked for FNs 117, 118 and 126, but not for the other four times it is used.
  • Done.
• Publisher names shouldn't be abbreviated (FN164: "U of Nebraska Press")
  • Done.
• There are a couple of hyphens that should be en dashes (FN 81 is one example)
  • Replaced with a colon instead, hope that is alright.

This is the first quick (ish) run-through on formatting. I'll have a more thorough look once these have been sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Newpapers and journals don’t need publisher details.
  • Removed.
• No publisher needs the company designation (Ltd, LLP, etc)
  • Removed.
• There are errors messages on Saighal 2008 (FN 22) and The Economist 2008 (FN 88)
  • Fixed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Page number for Rajagopalan (FN 149) – and a copy of the page/s please
  • Pages 95-96, available on the Google Books link. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Not for me. The view ends at page 91. (Google page views change depending on where you are in the world) - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

      My apologies, I was not aware. I will email those pages along with the rest to you soon. Matarisvan (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are a couple of references where the website name is given in the format "pib.gov.in". That's it's address, not its name. "Press Information Bureau" is the website name in this instance, but there are others
  • Changed. Only other such instance was claws.in which I have also changed.
• FN 106 is 163–4. It should be 163–164.
  • Done.
• In the text you have US, in the sources you have U.S. Both are correct, but they need to be consistent.
  • U.S. tends to be US usage, I would check what Indian English tends to use and use that. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Changed anyways. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Quality and range of sources used

• To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

OK, I don't have access to the following, so please can you send scans of the following pages:

• Panthaki & Panthaki 2016: pp. 17–27.
• Singh 2005, p. 92.
• Singh 2002, pp. 8-10, 16, 237–259
• Sharma 2007, p. 59.
• Singh 2011, p. 2011.
• Sinha 1992, pp. 131, 163-164, 217-224.
• Falki and Rajagopalan pages referred to above

I've sent you an email so you have an address to send these to. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I do not have access to my bookshelf at the moment as I am travelling, I will try to send scans by borrowing from the Open Library. Matarisvan (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed SIngh 2011 as it was being used for a single citation. As for Sharma 2007, I have added the Google Books link where page 59 is open access. I have also added the Google Books link for Sinha 1992, you can read page 131 on there. For the rest, I will be sending the scans soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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