Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sino-Indian War


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Sino-Indian War

 * Previous review

I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it easily meets the requirements and could even be promoted to FA in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — Very thorough, complete, and well-cited article on the subject. My only nitpick is that the phrase "Asian giants" in the infobox photo caption isn't very encyclopedic. JKBrooks85
 * Support with reservations Whilst i agree that there are many citations in this article, most of them are not cited correctly or indeed consisently. Recent experience at FA shows me that all citations need a Retrieved date. Many of the notes link to external websites simply with a numbered link. e.g Refs 71, 72, 73, 74. As an example, ref#75 is not very explanatory. I am not saying that they need to use Citation templates, simply that the link explains who and where it is from. Personally, i like the citation templates as they provide all the information that you need to know. Also several of the notes seem to be empty e.g. refs 30, 48, 51.
 * This article relies heavily on a few sources. In places it is overcited. Getting the ref name upto cu is some sort of record. In some paragraphs every sentence is referenced, but with the same reference. The convention at FA seems to be to have duplicated references at the end of the paragraph or statement. Whilst i understand that controversial statements in paragraphs should be cited, i think this article takes it a bit far. With the references as they are, it would not pass FA, but i do think it is worthy of A-Class.
 * It is also very long, 101kb to be precise. (It is #583 on the long article list). It could be broken down a bit more or WP:SUMMARY style could be more rigidly enforced. Saying that, i can't see many areas where the text can be broken down. Again, a possible problem at FA. Woodym555 14:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I see to many problems with the article:
 * The article seems a little long, is there any way to reduce the size without compromising the material?
 * In the second paragraph of the section "The Johson line" is the sentence "China rejected the arrangement, and the British government also harboured doubts, so decided to take up the issue in an attempt to reach a settlement."; however you don;t say who decided to take up the issue.
 * Remember that unless you are using a quote in its entirety you should use three dotes to denote where the quote coems from in relation to the other written material; "...(quote)." or "(quote)...". Case in point: "except through the intermediary of the Chinese government" in the section "The McMohan Line" (the "excpet" leads me to believe its part of a larger quote)
 * Check for consistancey with citation, I see some after periods and commas and some before periods and commas.
 * Toward the end of the Tibet OCntrovery section you the line "Other authors including Roderik McFarquhar also state that the most immediate threat to China was from Taiwan and as such.", but the line has no source and seems out of place. I would suggest removing it or sourceing it and expanding on it.
 * Try not to use the word however, other words like but, and, or, etc work equally as well.
 * There is no citation for the quote in the Ceasefire section
 * Check to make sure no sentences start with numerical quantites (like 1, 2, 3, etc); these numbers hbould be spelled out.
 * There is some inconsistancy in date formatting; make sure the daes are one style and linked whenever possible.
 * There is, as noted above, inconsistancy in the notes section with regard to formatting; this should be fixed. SandyGeorgia may be willing to help if you ask her nicely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.