Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive2

Sam Manekshaw


I've listed this article for peer review once again because I want to take it to FA status. The FA review which failed can be found here. I believe I have addressed all of the concerns raised there, though I might be wrong. I could be missing out on minute details as I tend to gloss over those while looking at the big picture view.

Thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be along to have a look at this. A very quick skim points out the following parts that may been a bit more work:
 * SC
 * "[73][74][75][76][77][78]" and "[129][130][131][132][133]": Is there really a need for so many refs for one short para? Trimming down any that may be duplicates is one possibility; cite bundling is another. My rule of thumb flickers around only having two (possibly three) refs, with bundling being used to reduce the numbers (too many strings of numbers catches people's eyes and makes the reading experience much worse.
 * I've removed one source from the latter series, but I believe that's not what you're looking for. I am using the mobile web editor for now as my PC is not working, so copying and pasting sources is tough work. I wanted the sources here to be more inline instead of piling up at the end of the paragraph but that's how it is for now, I will reformat once my PC is up.


 * There are too many short, stubby paragraphs throughout, which make it difficult to get a smooth reading flow.
 * Combined a few. The only ones left are the last para in Legacy before the subsections, and the first para in the Military career section. Of course, if you've spotted too many such paragraphs, I might be looking at this the wrong way. Could you tell me what the criteria for a too short paragraph is for you, in number of words or sentences?


 * Legacy. Is this comprehensive? It feels like there should be more there (although I have not looked at the sources). I don't think you need a series of one or two-paragraph subsections here either: one Legacy section with paragraphs on each point is better.
 * I believe it is comprehensive and further addition will add too many details or technicalities. I do believe there is a lot more to add here on counter insurgency, strategy, doctrine and triservice integration, among other things. But the sources are either too few or non existent, or deal with the subject in one liners. On the subsections, I would ask you to permit them, because I believe the org would become too haphazard and  full of confusing context switching otherwise.


 * "Manekshaw's first radio message": quote boxes can be a thorny issue: why not have this as a block quote at the right point of the narrative.
 * Done.


 * See "In popular culture" content, which advises on the pitfalls of these and gives advice on how they can work well. (Spoiler alert: bullet point lists fare badly; prose much better)
 * Agree with Schro -- as well as putting in prose, I'd consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thank you for joining in, Ian. I had pinged you on your talk page before the failed FAR but I think you might not have noticed.
 * Made it in the end...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great to have you here! Could you please also look at the 1st & 3rd points raised by SchroCat, and my response? Matarisvan (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason for the pretty pictures of decorations or ranks? Most of this should have been outlined in the prose above and the anniversary medals given to all are pointless to flag up. I'm never sure these sections add any knowledge to the subject. It would be worth asking someone like, who has several MilHist biographies under his belt as to how they are viewed on WP more widely.
 * Tks Schro for the ping. I find these things give a comic book feel to articles, although some editors disagree. You do find them in US military bios but not much in Commonwealth ones -- so I think it should be removed from this article. While we're on icons, the flags should be removed from the infobox per WP:infoboxflag. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed all 3 of them.
 * Okay, I would be removing the whole awards section, not just the ribbons. Campaign, service and anniversary medals aren't necessary in the article, and his high honours and gallantry award are already in the lead and infobox. As far as the ranks section goes, I've never bothered with one in any military bio I've written because I think they work better in the main body, the context of his overall career. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd also recommend putting this through the MilHist A-class review after PR - it's an excellent way to get it up to pretty much FAC level.
 * Right on, Schro -- MilHist ACR is the next logical step before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article has already been through an ACR. Which is why I believe only this PR or an FAR can take the article to FA status, as the ACR option is not available.
 * Ah, I wasn't involved in the ACR and didn't check the article history. In that case you could leave a message at the Milhist talk page to try to get more military eyes on the PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

These are my initial thoughts off the top of my head. I'll be back shortly to do a proper review. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * One thing I'd like to be proactive about: had pointed out the switching between Sam & Manekshaw in the FAR. I resolved that by using Sam upto the IMA subsection, then using Manekshaw. I did this because the parts where I use Sam have mentions of his other family members so using the family name would be confusing. I am open to any other suggestions for this conundrum, however. Matarisvan (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SchroCat [fix ping] Matarisvan (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Overall you need to remember this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, not a copy of Boys' Own, and it needs to be toned down in several places.
 * Personally I would have gone with Manekshaw wherever possible and use first names for the rest of the family. The excessive use of "Sam" sticks out too much for me.
 * You use World War II and Second World War – make this consistent
 * "Sam placed sixth": "He" works better
 * "He saw action in Burma" is something of a surprise link (I would expect to see the country on the link, not the campaign). "He saw action in Burma" would take the surprise away.
 * Done with all four of these.


 * "Having witnessed his grit in the face of stiff resistance, Cowan rushed over to him. Fearing that Manekshaw would die, the general pinned his own Military Cross ribbon on him after saying, "A dead person cannot be awarded a Military Cross".[32]" None of this is in the source. It's also written in purple prose that is entirely unencyclopaedic. It needs to be rephrased in more simple, encyclopaedic terms, cut by about a two-thirds and adhere to what the source says.
 * You'll need to ensure that all the information in all the references adhere to the sources. As a first time FAC nominator, the article will be thoroughly spot checked to ensure it is all in line with the sources.
 * Rewritten in line with sources.


 * MC citation: you can take away all the bold details at the top and just leave the paragraph that starts "This officer was in command..."
 * Done.


 * "Seven bullets had been shot through Manekshaw's body": again it's lurid prose – and the VK Singh source says nine.
 * & Removed.


 * "Much of his intestines were": the singular/plural has gone awry here.
 * Changed to most, is that alright?


 * "Despite Manekshaw's protests that he treat the other patients first, the regimental medical officer Captain G. M. Diwan attended to him after his surgery.[35][24] Attiqur Rahman, the battalion adjutant and Manekshaw's friend, visited him at the hospital in Pegu, where he was recovering after being shifted from the frontline medical camp.[36]": is this necessary or relevant?
 * Removed.


 * part of Gen. William Slim's: "General"
 * Done.


 * "During the Japanese surrender, Manekshaw was appointed to supervise the disarmament of over 60,000 Japanese prisoners of war (POWs). He handled this so well that no cases of indiscipline or escape attempts from the camp were reported. He was promoted to acting lieutenant colonel on 5 May 1946, and completed a six-month lecture tour of Australia.[38]" There is one source given to support all this. Can you look at the source and tell me how much information it actually supports?
 * Rewritten with proper sourcing.


 * "During his tenure as the commandant of the Infantry School, he discovered that the training manuals were outdated, and was instrumental in revamping them to be consistent with the tactics employed by the Indian Army.[45]" The source you give supposedly takes four pages to discuss this (you have pp. 193–197): is it really that much?
 * No, seems to have been an error on my part, the relevant pages are only 2, namely 195-196. Changed.


 * Nathu La and Cho La clashes: I don't get the point of this section. All he seems to have done is agree with one of his juniors and make a smart comment about Hamlet. I've read it three times and I'm still wondering 'so what? What did he actually do?" (and we don't need six citations to clutter the place up either WP:CITEBUNDLE is always an option).
 * The context is important here, I thought I had made it clear but I did not. India's strategy before these clashes and after them has always been to retreat when facing a Chinese offensive. This is a noteworthy aberration then. I also rearranged the sources so they don't pile up at one point and instead are used inline where they are needed.


 * "he developed the Indian Army into an efficient instrument of war": says who? This is a big claim and you're making it in WP's voice, which you shouldn't. It's an opinion, so tell us whose it is. (I'll also note that the article text "developed the Indian Army into an efficient instrument of war" is too close to the source's "by forging the Indian Army into an efficient instrument of War" for comfort. The source also makes zero reference to quotas or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

That's about half of it done and there are several serious issues that need to be addressed before this comes back to FAC. The sourcing is not up to scratch as it stands, and at least one bit of too-close paraphrasing (not great, considering I've only looked at three of the sources used). Some of the prose is too involved, other bits are too scant, and other parts are written like a novel, rather than an encyclopaedia. I don't doubt that the second half of the article contains many of the following flaws. All these will need to be worked on fully (and throughout the article) before I look any further – and certainly before it returns to FAC. For all that, he looks an interesting person and I'm sure there will be enough sources around that will be able to complete some of the missing pieces. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed all of the fluff and made the changes you recommended. I went ahead and rewrote the second half as well to remove all laudatory prose and make it neutral, though I might have missed something. Matarisvan (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * fix ping. Sorry for pinging again, hope this isn't disruptive for you, hope your weekend went well. Matarisvan (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to drop out of this now. I have concerns over the sourcing, as the issues above are in all likelihood not the only ones. I suggest you go through each sentence and see if it supported adequately by the source claimed. Others will be able to help from here on in, but unless the sourcing is 100 per cent, it won't stand a chance at FAC. You've had advice from two of us here, and from UndercoverClassicist on their talk page, so you should follow all the advice you've been given so far (including going through the A class review at MilHist). - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been a great help, thanks. As far as I can tell, I've made all the changes you recommended, except taking the article through ACR. For the sources, I understand why I should go word by word. As I cannot get more people to join in, I will be closing the review. Thanks once again. Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)