Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Manekshaw/archive5

Sam Manekshaw

 * Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only 2 Indian generals and the first one promoted to Field Marshal rank. I previously nominated this article for FAC two times. The first FAC, to be found here failed for a bunch of reasons, the article was not mature then. The second FAC, to be found here, failed because I had lost access to 3 books I had cited, and a reviewer could therefore not do the spot checks. I have replaced all citations to those books with accessible sources, and I'm looking forward to work with all reviewers. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, but the problems I identified in the last FAC are still present in this one. Looking at the changes made since the last FAC, the examples of problems are still present, and no work has been done to address other areas. Removing sources from a completed article needs to be done very carefully, and this does not look like that is the case here. Wikilinking magazines and publisher names is a waste of time for an article like this (linking publishers is nearly always a waste of time anyway): it needs much more fundamental work done on the text to source integrity, which is where this article fails yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you give specific examples? Matarisvan (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that changes like
 * to
 * are potentially worse, especially where the source is a magazine or newspaper rather than a book.
 * A better solution would be to add a second source, rather than replacing it; but in any case, @SchroCat or another reviewer would need to be able to review the books cited. Is it possible to get the scans as requested at the last review? This would go a long way to resolving some of the probems, or at least assessing how fundamental they are. Jim Killock (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source you mention above is a book, not a magazine or newspaper. I removed the two sources because I did not have access to them and replaced them with sources which were open access. Also, I searched for the two books at multiple libraries, they seem to be out of print and are only available at foreign libraries. On the topic of magazines and newspapers, I linked to them only to fulfill the criteria of consistency raised by @SchroCat in the last review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the above is a book. Removing good sources for worse ones is not helpful. In terms of where books are and getting access, yes that can be a problem. Solutions could include asking someone - an academic or the author - for scans or photocopies of the most relevant parts (partial copies for research purposes don't necessarily infringe copyright); purchasing second hand copies; getting a grant from Wikimedia to visit a reference library or to purchase second hand books. Jim Killock (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source you mention above is a book, not a magazine or newspaper. I removed the two sources because I did not have access to them and replaced them with sources which were open access. Also, I searched for the two books at multiple libraries, they seem to be out of print and are only available at foreign libraries. On the topic of magazines and newspapers, I linked to them only to fulfill the criteria of consistency raised by @SchroCat in the last review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the above is a book. Removing good sources for worse ones is not helpful. In terms of where books are and getting access, yes that can be a problem. Solutions could include asking someone - an academic or the author - for scans or photocopies of the most relevant parts (partial copies for research purposes don't necessarily infringe copyright); purchasing second hand copies; getting a grant from Wikimedia to visit a reference library or to purchase second hand books. Jim Killock (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry: I didn't realise a question had been left for me. I'll leave two of the paras I highlighted last time, slightly tweaked to show where the issues still lie (which is ostensibly the same as last time):
 * " 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,, Maharaja Hari Singh, appealed for help to India. On 25 October, Manekshaw accompanied V. P. Menon, , to Srinagar. , Manekshaw carried out an aerial survey of the situation in Kashmir. , 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, "


 * "On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were sent to Kashmir to defend Srinagar from the Pakistani forces, . 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, 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."


 * These are only examples of problems that run throughout the article. I am going to repeat what I said last time: "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." At the moment the information is not supported by the sources. The advice I left last time was that: "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 has not been done to even the smallest extent and the article is, I think, in a worse state than its last visit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, I am inclined to believe that you will not support this article for promotion even if it is proven to be the most epistemologically sound article in existence. I do not know if this is a result of some personal animosity with me or the article or Indians in general, or a hazing ritual for first time FAC nominators like college frats do.
 * Responses to the highlighted text:
 * "At the end of 1947": Singh 2005, page 192, last four lines. Singh says "shortly afterwards" but does not specify when, he does say that the infiltrators moved in on 22 October, a few days after Manekshaw's promotion. 22 October does seem to be close to the end of 1947, unless you only consider 31 December as the date fit to be called so. Nevertheless, I will try to find a public domain government source which gives the exact date.
 * "the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir": Page 193, line 1. Maharaja means ruler.
 * "the secretary of the States Department": Does not really need a source but will still add one.
 * While Menon was with the Maharaja: This is obvious, Menon could not be negotiating with the Maharaja and be present at the aerial survey at the same time, but I will remove this.
 * "According to Manekshaw": The book is Singh's recollection of what Manekshaw and other generals told him, but I will remove this.
 * "where Manekshaw suggested immediate deployment of troops to prevent Kashmir from being captured": Page 193, last 3 lines. This was Manekshaw's message to the Cabinet as per Singh.
 * who had reached the city's outskirts: I did not know that 9 kilometers is so far away that it cannot be considered outskirts, if I had specified 9 km, I am sure you would say copyvio.
 * (code-named "Operation Polo", also planned by the MO Directorate): I will add a separate source as the exact words are not there in this source.
 * Matarisvan (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also @SchroCat, if you had actually read the article before commenting above, you would have noticed that points 4, 5, 6 and 8 were removed. This further adds to the premise that you did not even read the article before commenting, and just copypasted your comments from the peer review and the last FAC review, I would imagine this is violative of FAC reviewer integrity in some way, no? Matarisvan (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not start making accusations, but concentrate on the facts @Matarisvan Jim Killock (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What if the accusations are also facts, Jim? Is it not provable from the above comments that the updated version was not read through even one time, only the changes which could be criticized were conveniently noted and previous comments were recycled without regard to the changes effected since? I knew this would happen but I am still in awe of the blatantess of it. Matarisvan (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Recriminations won't get us anywhere, is the point. This is difficult and painstaking work for all of us. Jim Killock (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is difficult work, but copypasting is not, I would assume. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this list of issues raises a few points:
 * this work requires patience and an asusmption of good faith on all sides
 * what is obvious to an Indian reader is not necessarily obvious to a US / European reviewer (points 2, 3, 4, 5)
 * what is obvious to an expert is not necessarily obvious to a non-expert (Operation Polo point 8)
 * going through these points will take time, so that checks and consensus on those can be more easily reached; whether FA is best for this is debateable, but if not then someone should ideally step up to help @Matarisvan with this work; and @Matarisvan will need to commit to following their advice closely
 * it would be helpful to number issues ( using # perhaps) if we are going to go through them in this way.
 * Jim Killock (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jim, I do want to assume good faith, but do the above actions warrant it? Would you consider these actions carried out in good faith? Matarisvan (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters what I think, but it will matter to your reviewers if you state baldly that they are in violation of their duties. We are all volunteers doing our best, so getting sidetracked into questions of whether we are somehow trying to be obstructive is just soul destroying. Better to work through the issues with the people trying to help you, even where if feels like the other person is making a mistake. Jim Killock (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will heed your wise words even though I think acts have been carried out here in bad faith. Matarisvan (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Points 1 to 8 have been addressed in the most recent edit, Jim. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I completely refute your accusation that I am acting in bad faith, or that I being driven by racism against Indians or some animosity to you or that I am engaging in some form of bullying. My review is solely driven by the state of the article. Nothing else. Because of your accusations, I will withdraw from this FAC, as I don't enjoy being accused of rubbish like this, but my oppose stands. What is in that paragraph is not covered by the source - and these are just examples of the shortcomings of the text. There just has not been enough work done since last time to make this one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, which is what an FA needs to be. please note. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I do reckon Ian will archive this within 24 hours, won't he? You have addressed none of the points of substance, only the resultant theories of mine. Also I did not accuse you of racism, only animosity, there is a difference. Could you just answer one question, did you read the article before commenting, or did you copy paste your previous comments, as I assumed? I bear no animosity towards you but I do believe you do towards me. Matarisvan (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

 * Matarisvan, you are completely out of order. These are outrageous accusations against any reviewer. (They are, if possible, even more so against an editor who has taken 82 articles through FAC and carried out 478 reviews.) I am archiving this. There will be the usual two-week hiatus. I suggest that you spend this time closely examining the beam in your own eye. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be Ian who would archive this, but all the same. You focused on my "accusations" but not the underlying. Matarisvan (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article is in such an horrible state, let the reviewer point out one paragraph other than the one they have used for PR 1, FAR1, PR 2, FAR 2, FAR 3; a paragraph which had already been updated. Matarisvan (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)