Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian National Army/archive3

Indian National Army

 * Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've edited this article considerably aiming for FA status. Edited considerably in the last few months by myself to make it NPOV, consistent, referenced and addressed the issues in the last peer reivew. More input will be welcome hoping to get it to FA status.

Thanks, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments Some work to do yet before it'll be FA-ready - you might consider running this through Military history A-class Review prior to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why so many citations in the lead? See WP:LEADCITE
 * Generally overlinked - some terms are linked more than once in a single section, never mind across sections
 * At FA level you will want to aim for consistency throughout in terms of formatting. For example, in the lead you've got South-East Asia and Southeast Asia - both are acceptable but pick one and stick to it
 * This is particularly true for citations, but those you will also want to be complete and correct. For example, footnote 127 needs a page number, while footnote 179 is a bare URL
 * You will also want to ensure you cite the best sources available
 * Suggest asking the Guild to take a look at the prose
 * Re: Thanks Nikkimaria.

Thanks.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The citations in the lead are in general overview links or for controversial aspects of the organisation.
 * Delinked on links and aimed for consistency. I have asked for guild rv. Ta

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, I only took a quick look (I looked mainly at referencing). Good work so far, I have the following suggestions:
 * there are quite a few "citation needed" tags that should be dealt with before tackling FA. I'd actually suggest trying for Good Article status first, though, and then maybe Milhist A-class review;
 * Agree with Nikki regarding the prose...there are quite a few areas that appear to be missing parts of speech;
 * this needs a reference: "In a bitter break, Bose resigned from the Congress presidency, founding his own faction, the Forward Bloc."
 * same as above for the paragraph ending with "...exhorting them to join in the fight for India's Independence." (equally the grammar and capitalization is wrong here)
 * same as above for the paragraph ending with "...which was to fight for independence of India from Britain."
 * same as above for: "Those charged after the first celebrated courts-martial only faced trial for torture and murder or abetment of murder."
 * same as above for the paragraph ending "...by Col. Shaukat Hayat Malik. Moirang was the first Indian territory captured by the INA"
 * same as above for: "The cry became Independent India's first commemorative post mark on 15 August 1947."
 * same as above for: "The Azad Hind Fauj Marg (Azad Hind Fauj Road) in New Delhi is named after the INA, and houses the Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology."
 * same as above for the paragraph ending with "The 1984 British TV series Jewel in the Crown, based on Scott's quartet, also includes the role of the INA as part of the political backdrop of the story, explicitly so especially in the 3rd episode of the series."
 * the harv errors script identifies several errors that probably should be rectified prior to a higher assessment/review;
 * Anyway, that's it from me at this stage. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rupert, I have now edited the article as far as possible according to your review, awaiting a guild copyedit. If you have anymore comments that will be great.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I did some copyediting per my standard disclaimer. Feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Check your capitalization: "campaign in South-East Asia", "South-east Asia". - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Maile


 * Please consider sectioning off the bibliography, either as a main section or a subsection of References.
 * Put the items in the bibliography in alphabetical order by author - it's very confusing as it is.
 * Needs proper citation formatting: 50, 190, 210
 * HarvErrors script shows a number of citations that don't point to anything. Either there is nothing in the bibliography for it, or it's formatted incorrectly: Citations 17, 21, 37, 40, 43, 49, 52, 72, 90, 105, 106, 111, 120, 124, 127, 136, 138 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 183, 201, 203
 * HarvErrors script says these books have nothing point to them:
 * Benegal, Ramesh Sakharam (2013), Burma to Japan with Azad Hind: A War Memoir 1941–1945 (this one is also listed twice)
 * van Der Bijil, Nick (2013), Sharing the Secret: The History of the Intelligence Corps 1940-2010
 * Friedman, Irving S. (1940), Pacific Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 1
 * Dignan, Don. (1983), The Indian revolutionary problem in British Diplomacy,1914–1919
 * Brown, Emily (1986), (in Book Reviews; South Asia). The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2
 * Hauner, Milan (1981), India in Axis Strategy. Germany, Japan and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War
 * Lundari, Giuseppe (1989), I paracadutisti italiani 1937/45 (also seems like only part of the info is there) (listed twice)
 * Cohen, Stephen C. (1983), (in Book Reviews) Pacific Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 2.
 * Toye, Hugh (2004), Subhash Chandra Bose
 * Ghosh, K.K. (1969), The Indian National Army: Second Front of the Indian Independence Movemen
 * Thompson, Peter (2005), The Battle For Singapore — The True Story of the Greatest Catastrophe of World War II,
 * Chand, Hukam (2005), History of modern India
 * Littlejohn, Davis (1987), Foreign Legions of the Third Reich, Vol 4: Poland, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Free India, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Russia
 * Kurowski, Franz (1997), The Brandenburgers Global Mission
 * Munoz, Antonio J. (2002), The East Came West: Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist Volunteers in the German Armed Forces, 1941–1945
 * Moreman, T.R. (2005), The Jungle, the Japanese and the British Commonwealth Armies at War 1941–1945: Fighting Methods, Doctrine and Training for Jungle Warfare
 * Allen, L. (1971)

Hope this has helped somewhat. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I have addressed all the concerns raised Maile. Much appreciate your input.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyeditor's comments copied and pasted from article talk page
I have done a copyedit of the article for grammar, spelling and sentence structure. I have fixed a couple of broken references, but I have not in any way done any reference-checking. Points that I have noticed while copyediting:


 * lots of links are dead
 * frequently the sources do not appear to be sufficient to justify the text they are supporting
 * I have some concerns over OR/NPOV aspects
 * some works that are referred to in inline citations do not appear in the reference section
 * quite a few WP:SUBMARINE links

Relentlessly (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break followed by Copy editor's concerns clarified

 * Per a request for further clarification, I'm thinking of passages like this one:
 * Further criticisms have been made in recent years over the denial of the "freedom fighter's pension" awarded to those in the Gandhian movement and over the general hardships and apathy surrounding the conditions of former INA soldiers.
 * This is presented as a general fact, but the citation that supports it is a single news article about one case. There are a few such incidents in the article. It's not just newspaper articles, but historians as well. Even if you have three historians saying something, you have to be careful around WP:SYNTH, particularly on potentially controversial subjects like this one. If you are thinking about FA, I urge you to do a very careful review of the sourcing of every statement.
 * You would also do well to consider WP:CSECTION. Is there another way you could frame the "Controversy" section/daughter article?
 * I took out a lot of submarine links while editing. Here is one more: propaganda campaign. There are possibly some others, I think.
 * Finally, NPOV. I tried to tone this down while I was editing, but it's worth considering anyway. What portrayal of the INA dominates? Is it the Indian nationalist one? What critiques are there of this view? As I say, I tried to tone down excessively positive statements, but it's worth a good check through.
 * Relentlessly (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Relentlessly. I can address most of these. However I will have to point out that the Controversy section and the Controversies article are actually put in to make the article NPOV. The reason is there are quite diametrically opposing views on the army, as the lead will say. Further, very lightly aware reader will have one or the other PoV. I highlight to you the discussions in this talk page itself (see above), the discussion in the Controversies talk page, Tokyo boys talk page, that there "are" many PoVs some diametrically opposed to the other. The Controversy section and the sub-article in itself has had to be created to state that those PoVs exist without qualifying or commenting on these, and includes both positive and negative PoVs. Its a bit like talking about Chengiz Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. Its a bit like talking about Chengis Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. To avoid conflicts, it has been lumped together under a 'Controversies' section. PS. I think you raise important points, and I will copy and paste this to the peer review page.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:
Relentlessly raised some interesting points, and I have tried to edit the article appropriately. The main objectives were

a. Reference the controversies to specific people rather than making broad general statements. b. Depict both the PoVs regarding the army. The latter point is particularly important since both the "traitors" and "patriots" view points are fiarly widely and strongly held. I suspect in India "Patriots" is universal while in Britain "Traitors and Axis collaborators" view point is universal. This leaves the only NPOV solution to mention both with references. Note neither view here is minority and both are significant. I will welcome more comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing peer review
Thankyou for all the comments. Looks like there are no more comments for a while, I am therefore closing this review and archiving it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)