Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive1

Sam Manekshaw


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC. I've incorporated comments from the last 2 FARs done in 2018.

Thanks, Matarisvan (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by JimKillock

 * Some small things:
 * lead: he is given civilian awards for a military action. I know nothing about this but it seemed a curious fact
 * It is rare for a military officer to be given civilian awards, but Manekshaw orchestrated India's biggest ever win over Pakistan, which is why he bucked this trend.
 * Early life and education
 * Hormizd - being his father, a shortened version of Hormusji presumably? But I had to re-read to understand this
 * added clarification
 * First para lacks a reference for the majority of it, one at the end might help
 * By the time Hilla recovered from the birth, the couple had found Amritsar salubrious and elected to settle in the city. Maybe: After Hilla recovered from the birth, the couple found Amritsar pleasant and decided to settle in the city. (salubrious sounds a bit old fashioned to my ear).
 *  As the first Indian to be awarded the air surgeon's wings  »  As the first Indian to be awarded air surgeon's wings 
 * Done with these 3 items.
 * Indian Military Academy
 * World War 2 » World War II
 * a junior by 5 years » "five"; I think MOS is to write out numbers under 10.
 * Done with both of these.
 * World War II
 * should this be separated out by action?
 * I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you mean by this. Did you mean to say that this should be part of the previous heading and not under a separate heading? Or did you mean to say each military action should have a separate section?
 * Yes, I would give a title This battle, date, as you do later in the article. It would separates the long account of his being shot, and getting a medal, from some other more routine details as well. Jim Killock (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * does the whole military notice need to be displayed as text? This feels a bit excessive. If you want to give it attention, then the original notice as an image might be better and more interesting. The text could then be included in the image description perhaps.
 * I have found it to be common practice to have military Citations displayed in full on Wikipedia. I believe there is an MOS for this over at the Military History WikiProject, but I might be wrong as I can't recall it exactly.
 * I would check on that, but certainly follow their advice not mine! Jim Killock (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The surgeon initially declined to treat Manekshaw, saying that he was badly wounded. » "too badly wounded"?
 * Done
 * General officer
 * break out the section, eg Charges of sedition where he nearly loses his career. This appears a bit buried without a title.
 * Same with the section on low morale.
 * Done with both of these.
 * War of 1956
 * who had then been very patriotic » who had up to that point been very patriotic
 * Nathu La and Cho La clashes
 * In 1967, 5 years after the War of 1962, China decided to capture 4 critical posts » five, four
 * Done with both items.
 * I've had to stop there. If I get time I will come back to it.
 * Much appreciated. I've added some events in the Kashmir War section after your comments came in.
 * Bigger things:
 * The writing is clear and sensible but at times feels to detailed to me. Is it necessary? Who is this aimed at? If it is a general reader, then I would say it is too detailed, especially in the early sections (ie, before 1947). Later on, once he has national significance as a military leader, the detail makes more sense. Jim Killock (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have had to add these details because the last two FARs, which failed, asked for them as non negotiables. I hope you continue with the review, your comments are what I would have received had I directly nominated this article for FAC. Overall, thank you for taking this one up, I believe I can pass FAC after we are done.
 * The sections may be needed, I would agree. Did they specify how much information they thought was needed? I'd be interested to see what was said. Of course, it may be that what is regarded as relevant and important is varying because the FA reviewers have a better sense of the likely readership that I do. Jim Killock (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last FAR in 2018 was the one which asked for more detail on the subject's personality, what made him a notable military commander and context on the events mentioned (points 1 and 2). The amount of detail in terms of paragraphs or lines wasn't specified, though I believe the reviewer was looking for more than just passing remarks. Matarisvan (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the FAR as looking for details about his motivations, beliefs and personality. What I think you could pare back is the section Early life and education, for instance:
 * Manekshaw's parents had left Mumbai in 1903 for Lahore, where Hormizd (Iranian name, his Indian name was Hormusji) had friends and where he was to begin practising medicine. However, by the time their train halted at Amritsar, Hilla found it impossible to travel any further due to her advanced pregnancy. The couple had to pause their journey to seek help from the station master, who advised that in her condition, Hilla should not attempt any journey.
 * By the time Hilla recovered from the birth, the couple had found Amritsar pleasant and elected to settle in the city. Hormusji soon established a thriving clinic and pharmacy in the centre of Amritsar. The couple had six children over the following decade, numbering four sons and two daughters (Fali, Cilla, Jan, Sheru, Sam and Jami). Sam was their fifth child and third son.
 * could be summarised as:
 * Manekshaw's parents left Mumbai in 1903 for Lahore to practice medicine, where Hormizd [footnote at Hormusji:his Iranian name was Hormizd] had friends. However, as their train halted at Amritsar, the station master persuaded Hilla to halt her journey due to her advanced pregnancy.
 * The couple liked Amritsar and settled there. Hormusji established a thriving clinic and pharmacy. The couple had four sons and two daughters; Sam was their fifth child.[footnote: their children were, in order Fali [state sex], Cilla [state sex], Jan  [state sex], Sheru  [state sex], Sam and Jami  [state sex].]''
 * Generally ruthless pruning on the early sections will make it a lot more readable. Jim Killock (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, final output was not the verbatim text you wrote up above. Hope this is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. But my advice would be to do the same through the following section, up to the World War II section. From then on it is easier to follow. There's maybe some pruning that could be done later, but it is the early sections which are a bit heavy going. Jim Killock (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, better now? Matarisvan (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Better I think. This is a lot of background:
 * The Indian Military College Committee was set up in 1931 and chaired by Field Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode. The committee recommended the establishment of a military academy in India to train Indians for officer commissions in the army. A three-year course was proposed, with candidates from the age bracket of 18 to 20 years old being eligible. The selection would be through an examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. A formal notification for the entrance examination to enrol in the Indian Military Academy (IMA) was issued in the early months of 1932. Examinations were scheduled for June or July.
 * This could be:
 * The new Indian Military Academy was opened in 1932, and examinations for new entrants were scheduled for June-July. Jim Killock (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The section above was getting too congested and vertical, so I started this new thread. I will rewrite the IMA section, should I club that edit with any other changes you would like to suggest? Matarisvan (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure :) As a guide, keep in mind that the article is about Sam Manekshaw, and other background material should be the minimum needed to understand his story. There are links to everything else. I don't have too much time today now but I will keep checking. Jim Killock (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

More things:


 * I don't think the cuts at the start are sufficient personally, but you can leave this for your FAC review (from MOS: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). Thank you for those you have done tho, they are a definite improvement.
 * What do you think remains to be trimmed?
 * Personally, I think the family background and some of the educational items are a bit too detailed. Compare how much you have here, when he is not a significant figure, to the times when he is. I know how I would cut but I would just say - aim for 30% less words.


 * Why are the sections on the War of 1965 and Nathu La and Cho La clashes very short? Is there not much to say?
 * Yes. Even though there is not a lot the subject did during these two conflicts, his role was nevertheless very important strategically. The citations have more in depth details, day by day records and anecdotes which would have been too much for this article.


 * Chief of Army Staff "The orderly replied that he did, and on being asked to name the chief, he said "Sam Bahadur" - this seems to be some kind of in joke which I can't understand as a non-Indian! It would need explaining for an international audience.
 * Footnote E addresses that.


 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
 * In April, India decided to assist in the formation of the new nation of Bangladesh. - NPOV India intervened to hasten the formation of an independent state of Bangladesh might be better.
 * I think I will be removing this one, thank you for noticing this. I don't think either statement would be acceptable to FAC reviewers, they would require a lot of supporting references which would detract from the subject. Would it be alright with you if I removed this statement?
 * They clearly had a war aim. What do the sources say it was? If the publicly stated war aim was different, eg "we are concerned about violence and are intervening to establish order and prevent the flow of refugees" then perhaps also state that, explaining that this was what was said. Again, follow the sources; maybe say most analysts agree the objective was to allow Bangaldesh to become independent. Edit wars unfortunately can't really be the standard although I wholly understand your desire to avoid them.
 * Thank fully reverting edits on FAs is easier than on non-FAs as you can just say "this has been reviewed" if people try posting nonsense. It is an effort to maintain tho.
 * The main goal was to create Bangladesh as a separate entity, which is what I have put in here.


 * to go to war with Pakistan - add to ensure Bangladeshi independence, as presumably there was not a plan to invade in the west.
 * There indeed was. The plan was to take over Punjab, Pakistan occupied Kashmir & Sindh, while leaving Balochistan for Iran & the Khyber for Afghanistan. As such, India participated in the Battle of Basantar, Battle of Turtuk and the Chachro Raid. Before any further movements could be made, the US pushed for a ceasefire. Would you still suggest this change?
 * I think, it should be mentioned, eg Pakistan was also invaded from the east, but Manekshaw was not involved in this, assuming that is the case. If he was, that needs adding.
 * The article does mention that the attack was on both fronts, Eastern and western.


 * the navy and the air force - maybe the Indian navy and the air force (NPOV)
 * Done


 * which were in contravention of international law - in whose view? should be stated, for NPOV
 * The third citation addresses this point. However, the contravention was of US military policy not international law, so I've changed that up.


 * and led to their defeat - NPOV, "contributed"; or perhaps "was the catalyst for".
 * Done


 * regarding the behaviour of Indian troops, it would be useful to have Pakistani sources to corroborate or refute this statement
 * Likewise Pakistani causalties and his reputation among Pakistani POWs
 * I've been thinking about doing this, but I don't think Indian nationalists would like that. I have Pakistani sources ready but putting them in would lead to constant edit warring. I'm looking for neutral sources, like UNMOGIP or the Red Cross. Would this be better?
 * That would be adequate, if they agree or express any reservations. If any reservations or accusations exist which are not mentioned by Indian or neutral sources, even if not true and refutable, they need to be acknowledged
 * Added a research paper as a citation which analyses this exact topic.


 * Personal life and death "Owing to the controversies in which Manekshaw was involved post-retirement" - are these all included? It feels like they may not be.
 * The last FAR I linked to warned against having controversies in a Biography which I reckon was a violation of BLP. If I do put in the controversies, we would need to have a whole new section and expand the article by multiples of 1000 bytes as the subject has more than his fair share of controversies.
 * I agree with you. In any case, he is not a living person, which is what BLP addresses, so the level of care is not as important. Accuracy and balance from the sources is what is important. If the sources express issues then they should be explicitly stated, if the detail would be too much, yes start another page with the detail, This doesn't need to be done, but can act as a repository if other people add more detail about issues.
 * Without some basic information i doubt you would get FAC, or at least, in my view, it shouldn't qualify! But I am your peer, ie have the same status as you, I am not a judge of this.
 * I will put up a summary of the controversies alluded to in this statement, perhaps as a note or otherwise. Would that be enough according to you?


 * was not customary for a leader of national importance - would have been would be clearer
 * Done
 * Anything you would like to add on sources, notes or bibliography?
 * Looked fine to me, but I didn't spend time on this. I would suggest that some of the personal detail could be moved to notes, so you have it, but the read is easier.
 * If you have the time, would you please go through these sections? If not, is there anything else or should we pack this one up? I will be taking this to FAC and would like to do it before the weekend is in full swing and most editors are afk. If possible, we could do the FAR as well after this?
 * Hi there, the glaringly obvious thing is that the cites are a mix of two styles, some have full citations, and others have short citations, and the full reference is listed below. WP's style guide says use one or the other, be consistent IIRC. So if I were you, I would move all the references to a separate block (maybe blocks, if there are groups of references by subject) and make sure all the citations use sfn or arvnb style short citations.
 * I'm afraid that is it from me. I've only just done my own first GA review, and am waiting for my first GA submission to be checked. For FA you are going to need some people to help with checking citations and subject knowledge, who should be able to assess the balance of the article. If you let me know on your talk page when a FA is going forward, I can check in and make some suggestions, at least from a policy, international reader and balance perspective. Jim Killock (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * So what this article uses is a bibliography and references format. For references used in multiple different sections, the full reference is in the bibliography like it would be for a book, and the short citation is in the references section. For references used only one or two times, a full citation is given in the references section and nothing goes into the bibliography section. I hope that addresses this point. Would you like to add anything else? Matarisvan (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right I see. Again, I'm not sure if that will be viewed as good practice or not, but to me as a casual viewer it looks like it's multiple editors using different styles. And from a maintenance perspective you are inviting problems, future editors are likely to think they can choose whichever style they like. Jim Killock (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really, this format is the default now for most FA and GA candidates I have seen. The maintenance concern is valid, but I think most editors are aware of this format. Matarisvan (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised about that, I would have thought that fell foul of the citations guidance to avoid: switching between major citation styles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that rule only applies if there is no bibliography to refer to for short citations used multiple times. If you look up the recent FA candidates which passed, most if not all of them would be using this format. Matarisvan (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope your first GAC goes through. I'll make sure to let you know when I put this article up for FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Best of luck, closing this one, will add a summary of the controversies as you advised. Nominating for FAC, will post on your talk page when I do so. Matarisvan (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)