Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/K. Subrahmanyam
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
K. Subrahmanyam[edit]
- Nominator(s): Jokester99 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...of substantial work in updating a stub to a hopefully balanced encyclopedia-level entry, with extensive and reliable references. Article is also about a very significant player in Indian military and foreign policy history, especially with regard to his key status in Indian nuclear postures on the global stage Jokester99 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Jokester99, May 9, 2009
- Comment: There are several ambiguous links that need to be disambiguated: click on "disambig links" in the toolbox on the main review page to see them. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Done Fixed all 'disambig' links. Thanks for the feedback, let me know if any more - Jokester99 (Jokester99) 10 May 2009
- Object - single line paragraphs, cites before punctuation, incomplete references, Rediff and blogspot are not RS. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let me see what can be done about the first two objections. What do you mean by incomplete reference? Any instances? Blogspot was referenced only because it was a senior Indian journalist's, who reproduced a published article of his. It's been replaced. I'm afraid I would question your referring to Rediff.com [1] as not RS. It is the leading online news source in India, been around awhile and seen as credible. Please elaborate. -Jokester99 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Jokester99, May 11, 2009
- Oppose for now. The following are just a few points that need to be addressed before I initiate a line by line analysis:
- The lead requires an expansion to a good two or three paragraphs briefly summarising the contents of the article.
- Dates in the article should be delinked.
- Citations should be placed after puncuation without a space.
- The citations need to be formatted correctly. I suggest you use Template:Cite web.
- "See also" sections should only include links that are relevant to the article, but are not previously linked to in the prose.
- Images should not be aligned to the left if they are directly under a level three heading.
- It is preferred that one-liner paragraphs are not present in an article, and if shorter paragraphs are combined.
If these issues are adequately addressed, then I should be able to then complete a full review of the prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Yesterday I had prepared a really detailed review, but it got lost, so here's a briefer version of the main points.
- It needs a copy-edit. There are many sentence fragments and awkward phrases.
- Linking needs to be gone over. Many terms are overlinked, again and again in the same paragraph or section.
- It has technical MOS issues, I especially noticed some problems with WP:DASH compliance.
- All the above issues need to be fixed as well.
- My apologies for the brevity of this, I just can't bring myself to read over the entire article again. Linking and prose were the main problems I noticed. – Joe N 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The article at this point in time appears to be well written and may qualify for GA status if not A. I would look at sending it to GAN. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: please check the citations for any duplicates that could be consolidated. I saw at least one (62 & 63), but there might be others. I just had a quick look.— AustralianRupert (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't done a detailed review, but no article can pass for A (or even GA) with raw URLs in the references. I have provided a guide to solving this problem on the talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.