Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sam Manekshaw/archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sam Manekshaw edit

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The article recently reached GA status, and was copy-edited by GOCE after that. The article is about the first field marshal of the Indian Army. He was the army chief during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh in December that year. He was also awarded Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award. I welcome comments to take the article to A-class status and eventually to FA status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Field_Marshal_Sam_Manekshaw.jpg: suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}}
File:Autograph_of_Manek_Shaw.JPG does not qualify as own work - what is the copyright status of the signature?
The ribbons should include details of the original design and its status, as should the flag.

Oppose pending image cleanup as most of them have issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Autograph is photographed by the uploader, so I believe it is an own work. Also the ribbons must are own works, what is the problem? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia follows US law, according to which reproducing a 2D work does not result in any copyright for the reproducer - thus, the uploader has no claim to the signature, we only consider the status of the original work itself. Similarly, the ribbons are based on a pre-existing design - more likely than not they are PD, but we should say so explicitly and provide a source for the design. Same with the flag, which may or may not be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've removed the ribbons, but haven't changed the signature or flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Also removed the signature. Which flag you're talking about? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag_COAS_India.jpg, which is in one of the templates at the bottom of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I've focused mainly on the ref presentation for the timebeing. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 "Anwesha Madhukalya" should use "surname, first" and is missing details of the publisher or wider work
Ref 11 "Tarun" is missing the first name of the author and the details of the wider work (e.g. Times of India)
Ref 13 "Compton" should use the same format as Singh for consistency
Ref 14 "Times of India" should be in italics
Ref 16 "Accessed on 3 June 2011" --> should be "Retrieved 3 June 2011" for consistency of style; "London Gazette" should be in italics also
Ref 31 "Manekshaw". Indianarmy.nic.in" is missing publisher and access date information
Ref 41 "Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw dead". ibnlive.in.com." is missing an access date
Ref 44 "Colonel Anil Athale" should be "surname, first" for consistency (I'd drop the rank too, as it is unnecessary);
Ref 48 "Lt Gen Sk Sinha" --> as above
Ref 49 "Nitin Gokhale" --> "surname, first"
Ref 49 "April 3, 2014" --> inconsistent date presentation
Ref 50 "PTI": what does PTI stand for?
Ref 53 "Ajai Shukla" --> "surname, first"
Ref 59 "15 Aug 2012" --> full date for consistency
Ref 60 "IANS": what does this stand for?
Ref 60 "18 Dec 2008" --> full date for consistency
Ref 60 "The Hindu group" --> "The Hindu Group" as it appears to be a proper noun

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review. All done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the References, are there any other full length biographies of Manekshaw that could be consulted? For instance, Leadership, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw by Shubhi Sood (2006), or Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw: Great General by Kunwar Ishwar Singh Rathore (2016), or Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw: The Man and His Times by Behram M Panthaki; Zenobia Panthaki (2014). This search brings up a few: [1];
link 26th Infantry Division in the prose
same as above with 167th Infantry Brigade (even if it is a red link, as it seems notable enough for an article)
full name for "M.L. Thapan"? This says it was "Mohan Thapan": [2]
Where was the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots located when Manekshaw joined them?
Same as above for the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment?
"While handling the issues relating to Partition in 1947, Manekshaw demonstrated his sound planning and administrative skills": what was his role at this time?
"But due to the court proceedings, Manekshaw did not see any notable action during the war": did he see any action at all? If not, I'd suggest making this clearer
"first grade staff officer": link to Staff_(military)#British.2FCommonwealth_staff
"Razmak Brigade, stationed in Burma" --> are you sure that the Razmak Brigade was in Burma? My understanding is that it was a rotational brigade that served on the North West Frontier...I could well be wrong, though
"He did this with perfection, no cases of indiscipline or escape attempts from the camp were reported": be careful of words like "perfection" as they can seem to demonstrate a POV
"by tarnishing others on false claims" --> " by tarnishing others with false claims"

There are comments here that have been unaddressed for three weeks and there are no declarations of support after nearly two months so I'm closing this. Krishna, feel free to renominate whenever you have more time on the hands, but I would respectfully ask you to make sure you've addressed all the outstanding comments on your other reviews first. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.