Talk:Indian Army during World War I/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is a very nicely done article. I like how you have linked the Indian Army's activity to the other aspects of the war, placing it entirely in context. I might have appreciated knowing if there were internal political struggles going on, but perhaps that is another article entirely. I've made some very minor tweaks and grammar/punctuation fixes, nothing major, just to help with clarity and focus. Nicely done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Auntieruth55, please suggest further scope for expansion .I have linked for article regarding political events during the time. Anything Else?
 * --Vinay84 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vinay, you've done a very nice job with this. I'd like to see you tackle the larger issues that were brought up during the peer review process (see Faraway's and my comments below).  I wouldn't expect you to include everything in one humongous article, but this is an important subject and needs a series, I think.  You've done very well so far, and I'd like to see you carry this into a broader project.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reservations about GA Status
I have serious reservations about the speedy award of GA status to this article right now! An article about a national army should at least also cover:
 * Command and control structure: Who lead the army, who did he report to for operational command and for political control?
 * An order of battle, at least to corps or possibly division level is essential.
 * What was the difference between the Indian Army and the British Army in India and the British Indian Army?
 * The army contained other corps, yet there is no reference to Indian Artillery and Indian Engineering corps?
 * The article was submitted for Peer Review - yet, none of those comments were taken into account in the swift transition to GA status. Comments can be found here.

I sincerely believe that this is a GA or even an A-Class article. But it still needs some work, and we should not be submitting articles for peer review, and then promoting them in a parallel course to the review process! I have not reverted the GA status, but I urge you to consider the comments from the MilHist project.

Farawayman (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reservations. Given the standards for GA, I still think this article meets them. It sets up the limitations of the article in the lead, and does not pretend to be a comprehensive article covering all aspects of the Indian army, but rather the various actions of the Indian army in the war. Before it goes to A-class review, other issues need to be addressed, including a few very minor prose issues.  These are:
 * the fraught history of Indian military, especially after 1858;
 * command and control of the army during the war;
 * problems of transportation;
 * the problems of integrating different castes, religions, and ethnic groups into the army (issues of segregation and integration), which is mentioned, but not dealt with in detail;
 * technological problems, especially vis a vis conflicts between western technology and Indian religious requirements;
 * and others.
 * The Command and control structure should, I think, have an article of its own. In the India case, especially, this was a complex and loaded situation.
 * The orders of battle seem to go into separate "lists"...no problem as far as I can see with not including this in the article, although it should have a separate list.
 * The differences between the armies, etc., is a comparative article, something to deal with separately, and once that is written, should be integrated back to the basic article.
 * Regarding the conflicting submissions to GA and peer review, it used to be the policy that there would not be a GA submission while there was an open peer review. I didn't notice that a peer review was still open. Regardless, this really doesn't change my mind about the GA, although it points out to me that I should have made a more elaborate critique.  It is still a good article, within the stated limitations on the topic. I'd like to see a series of articles, however, and that needs to be encouraged. Perhaps we can encourage this editor to tackle that kind of project, in a series, rather than asking him to make it all in one fell swoop.  I was pleased to see an article of this quality on Indian military at all, and I'd like to see more.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the intention was to limit the scope, then perhaps another title should have been selected, as I dont see the limtation in either the name, or the lead. Be that as it may, lets try to get this to A Class with a scope and quality level which cannot be disputed.  I will try to assist wherever I can.  Farawayman (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the simultaneous GA and Peer reviews, I was unaware of the policy and the mistake is mine.However, Jim and I have taken the suggestions into account as and when they came .For example, all of AustralianRupert's suggestions were dealt with.

--Vinay84 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I must have missed where it says an article can not go in for PEER and GA reviews at the same time. It common practice to do both, I believed because the PEER review process has no bearing on the article class and its an internal WPMILHIST review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)