Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arjun (tank)

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Arjun (tank)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I think it deserves an A class rating Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, suggest withdrawal This article has an entire unreferenced section, as well as a considerable amount of unreferenced material elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, it wasn't referenced because all of the technical data provided in the specification table was covered in the article and they were all cited. And there's no considerable amount of unreferenced material elsewhere in the article. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please point out, so that I can Improve it.Echo1Charlie (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments: I notice that this is also currently nominated at GAN. I agree with Nick, it would probably be best to withdraw this from ACR, as I wouldn't advise running both an ACR and GAN concurrently. That said, I took a quick look and will offer a few brief comments to hopefully help with the process. At this stage, I believe that the article needs a thorough copy edit. I have made a start, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do the full job due to my current work situation. Other points/suggestions I have: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * check that all the refs are reliable per the definition at WP:RS, for instance I see a couple of blogs are other web sources that might be questioned
 * remove the empty Ext links section
 * provide refs for Notes 1 and 3
 * provide refs for each entry in the Variants section
 * please remove duplicate links
 * the smoke grenade entries in the Specifications table needs ref
 * remove the subheader under in the Upgrade section and or merge it with the higher level header
 * remove the bolding for active and passive protection in the Defensive aid system section
 * armor v armour (and potentially other examples) -- please be consistent in the English language variation used
 * this needs a ref: "A 7.62 mm machine gun in coaxial weapon mount" (in the Secondary armament sub section)
 * please ensure that everything that is in the infobox is mentioned in the body of the article with a ref

Thanks you for your valuable suggestions and contributions to the article, I'll try to correct it, - I think the name of the (upgraded) variant should be mentioned as the subheading of upgrades section -Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blog references are not used in the article, but if you're referring to citations no.16 and 26 (now at 18 and 27 after correction), they are not blogs but news links of Network18 Group and NDTV respectively, authored by a reputed defence analyst and economist Saurav Jha, I did a quick research to find the "Saurav Jha blog" mentioned in the title but I couldn't find, I don't know why there's a mention about saurav jha blog. (edit: maybe it's a 'column name') -Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Empty ext link removed ✅
 * citation provided to both Note 1 and 3 ✅
 * Citation provided to contents in the variant section ✅
 * Duplicate links removed ✅
 * citation provided to smoke grenade entries ✅
 * Upgrades section merged with history section, subheading removed ✅
 * bolding for active and passive protection -removed ✅
 * armor vs armour - 3/4 were from wikilinks, one corrected to armour. Edit: ✅
 * 7.62 mm machine gun in coaxial weapon mount -ref provided ✅
 * Information provided in the infobox is mentioned in the article ✅

G'day, I have had another look and have a couple more follow ups: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "In 2014, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India commented that critical parameters of the 2010 comparative trials had been significantly relaxed for the T-90 tanks.[63]" -- this point probably needs to be explained a little -- I am not sure what is being implied here
 * citations 6, 9, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37, 43, 65, 66 should have details such as author, publisher, pages, access dates etc if possible
 * "Philips, Snehesh Alex" v "Alex Philip, Snehesh" v. "Philip, Snehesh Alex" -- this name is presented differently in three citations -- sorry, I don't know what is correct, but can you please check and make it consistent?
 * compare citation 1 with 54 -- there is a slight inconsistency with regards to the author and title format; can you please adjust?
 * I have done some more copy editing, but I am really just tweaking around the edges; I would definitely suggest requesting a thorough copy edit from the WP:GOCE

Hai I did some correction to the citation as per suggestion but there are some problems - 1. these are either main websites or annual report so author's can't be added 2. page number is added only to citations (reports) which are cited only once, there's a practical limitation to add page number to citations which are used multiple time eg: citation 26, 31(previous 30), which are cited 2 and 8times in the article hence

Author's name corrected ✅ —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation 1 and 54(now 55; update :again at 54 after the removal of citation 1): author's name was absent in citation number 1 (also it looks odd) edit:removed, author's name was added to citation number 55, they've changed domain to https://frontierindia.com/
 * comptroller auditor general's remark - actually I left it intentionally, as 1. To avoid paraphrasing 2. I don't know how to present it (it was presented as a table in p.35 of the cited source)
 * WP:GOCE request ✅ —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

G'day, I took another brief look over the article today and did a bit more copy editing. I have a few more follow up suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Hai I'm glad that you're still helping to improve this article, Thank you! Let's come to the point —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * compare citation 30 with citation 31 (and other examples) -- the formatting should be consistent (e.g italics and use of page numbers); the issue here seems to stem from using a mixture of cite book and cite report templates for the same sort of ref
 * citation 31 and 32 appear to be the same -- please consolidate using a WP:NAMEDREF, or differentiate with separate page numbers
 * is the ground clearance figure in the infobox mentioned in the body?
 * same as above for fuel capacity? (Please check all parameters in the infobox are in the article)
 * the lead mentions that the FCS developed for the Arjun has been integrated into the T-90s built in India, but I was not able to find this mentioned in the body of the article
 * Citation 30-31 - formatting corrected, page number added ✅
 * Citation 31 and 32 are same but content is on different pages; is it okay to add that citation repeatedly with different page numbers?
 * It would be best to differentiate each instance with a unique page number. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggestion 3 and 4 ✅
 * Suggestion 5 — That would become repetition, isn't it?
 * No. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, not introduce information that isn't covered in the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm currently updating the page numbers, I'll add it after that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I might be blocked for edit war although I believe right is on my side, please don't fail this article in my absence, it's request. Thank you.——15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)

All suggestions are ✅ —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Happy to let you know that WP:GOCE is completed!—Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Any update on this??—Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have done all I can at the moment, I am sorry. I would prefer that a source review pass be achieved (specifically in relation to reliability) before I devote further time to this one. One thing I notice, though, is that the lead is now six paragraphs, which is too long. Four paragraphs would be ideal per WP:LEAD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hai first of all sorry, I couldn't respond in time, I was off for a few days and had some problem with my user account. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Four paragraph Lead ✅ —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment on sourcing

 * This article seems to be almost entirely based on primary sources: information published by the Indian MoD, the DRDO or press articles quoting them or their spokespeople. At first glance it would seem that none of these should be in any Wikipedia article, much less one nominated ad ACR. Unless it could be explained how these or not primary sources, or how they meet WP:PSTS I would have to oppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hai, lets come to the point

—Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Also these annual reports are not written in a self-promotional tone (anyone can access it online and read it), this also prompted me to cite them in the article. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) My comment — I have invested hours on this article and I believe I've carried out every suggestion put forward here, but never mind, if it doesn't meet the standard you can turn down this proposal. I understand that Wikipedia standards or policies are not something we should water down for one article. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Primary source: Yes this article depends on annual reports, but meets WP:PRIMARY Policy
 * primary sources that have been published may be used in Wikipedia — Annual reports are published documents submitted for discussion in Parliament of India
 * No interpretation of primary source is made in the article
 * A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge
 * No analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesize is made based on the primary source
 * "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" — the primary sources (Annual reports from 2000 or so to 2018) has been used for history of the tank development, the article also has other sources - news sources, books, magazines etc
 * "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material" — NO unsourced material WP:OR in the article, everything has an inline citation to it
 * 1) DRDO or press articles
 * I think there's only one press release is used on the article —"The new APFSDS Mark 2 round reportedly has ..." - this statement has a press release and a published source attached to it; as per the policy
 * per this edit summary, the nominator wishes to withdraw this nomination, can one of you please close it for them? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, tks Echo1Charlie for the nomination and Rupert for the ping. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)