Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Manekshaw/archive2


 * 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) 09:04, 13 May 2018.

Sam Manekshaw

 * Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. His military career spanned four decades and five wars, beginning with service in the British Indian Army in World War II, and he is one of the most widely acclaimed military commanders in independent India’s history. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Krishna, I'm really sorry but this is an oppose for now, on prose and comprehensiveness ("places the subject in context"). Let's start with the positive: this is a really nice, thorough biography. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it and it's certainly of a high quality. It's just not quite FA quality yet in my opinion. There are three main issues, and then I have some line-by-line nitpicking. The main issues: I'm happy to give line-by-line commentary later but here are a few more minor points: I'm happy to do a line-by-line review at some point, but I think there's some more heavy-duty work to do before that kind of fine detail would be useful. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 06:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead (and indeed the article in general) does not give me much of a sense of the man. It's clear that he's not "just another general", but beyond the claim that he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in independent India's history (which is made, unreferenced, in the opening paragraph but nowhere else in the article), it's not clear what makes him more significant than any other general of his era. I also feel there's more to say about his personality than you do at present. We get snippets, like the anecdote about the Australian surgeon, his treatment of Pakistani POWs, and his popularity with the Gurkhas but surely someone has written something about his personality in general?
 * The article lacks context for major events which impacted on Manekshaw's life and career. There's no discussion of of India's independence from Britain or of how Manekshaw got from the British Indian Army to the army of the newly independent India; the partition of India is mentioned (a hugely significant piece of history, especially for an Indian general who played a leading role in the subsequent wars) but never explained; we get nothing on Manekshaw's feelings about the partition or towards Pakistan; did he have the option to join the Pakistani Army? Nowhere in the article do you explain what the COAS is, nowhere does it explain why Manekshaw was chosen to be the first field marshal, or why the rank was created in the first place.
 * There are some issues with the prose and flow. The lead is choppy in places, and parts of the article are difficult to follow. For example, what does Because of a shortage of qualified officers on the outbreak of war, Manekshaw was given acting or temporary ranks mean? You have he received the local rank of lieutenant-colonel and he was promoted to the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel just a few sentences apart. The description of the DGMO post in unclear—do you mean to say that the upgrading of the office happened during Manekshaw's tenure?
 * Punctuation should generally go outside quote marks per MOS:LQ
 * Singh forced him to treat Manekshaw forced how?
 * regimental medical officer, Captain G. M. Diwan, attended to him What happened to the Australian?
 * There's some overlinking, for example "prime minister", deputy prime minister", and "government" are common terms that probably shouldn't be linked.
 * You use phrases like "at that time" a lot which are generally unnecessary (I removed a couple); it can be taken as given that that's the role they held at the time being discussed, and that people move to other roles during their career.
 * As his children and grandchildren aren't public figures, the detail about them should be kept to a minimum; we certainly shouldn't publish their exact dates of birth.
 * Separate "controversies" sections are frowned upon, especially in biographies. I'm not sure what the relevance is of the last paragraph, but the rest should be incorporated into the biography in chronological order like everything else to ensure NPOV.
 * Hi Harry, thanks for the comments. I'll get to these by Thursday. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Harry, I am unable to find sources that'll add to the article. So I withdraw this nom for now. However, I tried to address your specific comments on minor issues. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please close this nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.