Talk:Operation Poomalai

WPMILHIST Assessment

Thank you for your hard work in producing a lengthy, interesting, and well-written article. However, the introduction is written with the assumption in mind that the reader knows that Sri Lanka is being discussed. References to Tamils, Columbo, and Jaffna imply it, but it should be explicitly expressed as early in the article as possible that this takes place in Sri Lanka and which events/war this relates to. Thank you. LordAmeth 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

The GA nomination has failed, for now. After you address the issue laid out below feel free to renominate it. I will be posting my full review with intense comments shortly. Thank you for your patience. IvoShandor 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

More specific comments

• Criteria #1: Well written.

• Prose:

• Numerous specific problems here caused this article to fail GA criteria #1. It appeared that the article was written by a non-native English speaker, which is fine, but it appeared, as well, that the article had received a copy edit from a native speaker, however, numerous errors were missed.

• Look for long run on/awkwardly worded sentences, an awkward and major grammatical error, example:n the 1970s, two major Tamil parties united to form the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) that started agitation for a separate state of Tamil Eelam within the system in a federal structure in the north and eastern Sri Lanka[4] that would grant the Tamils greater autonomy.
• There was more than one occurance of this kind of mistake, look for them. Read stuff aloud if you unsure, if it sounds weird or is hard to say, it is probably an awkward sentence or run on or fragment or the like and should be reworded.

• Watch for redundancies, for example: has been --> "was"

• A thorough copy edit or two is very necessary in this case.

• Structure

• Overall pretty good, with any expansion make sure you add appropriate sections accordingly.

• MOS

• The bold is unnecessary, use only in the first mention of the title within the lead.
• Go ahead and use the second tier headline instead of the third: ==headline==
• Combine any one sentence paragraphs into the paragraph above or below them.
• Make sure the lead represents a good summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD, it should be able to stand alone if it had to. Also assure the lead length conforms to the above guideline.
• Srilankan Navy: Wouldn't it be "Sri Lankan Navy"? Be consistent here.

• Jargon

• Gp Capt
• Wg Cdr
• Coramandel coast: Should be wikilinked if possible
• 1500 Hours: I don't know if military time or the 24 hour clock is desirable or necessary. You decide.
• feet: Should be wikilinked on its first occurence and the metric equivalent should be given in parenthesis after each measurement.

• Criteria #2: Verifiable

• References

• References are not properly formatted, see WP:CITE, WP:CITET (these templates will give you an idea of what information to include even if you don't use them), WP:RS.

• Inline citations

• In line citations in the middle of sentences are awkward and very distracting to the reader, just move them to the end of the sentence.

• Reliable

• Without proper citation information the reliability of the sources is very hard to judge.

• Original research

• Again proper use of references is essential in this article

• Criteria #3: Thoroughness

• Major aspects

• What happened on the Sri Lankan side of things? How did their military and government respond to the incursion? Not having this can slant the article's POV.
• What was the outcome of the humanitarian crisis that the operation was meant to alleviate? What happened to the people?
• The question of whether or not there was any kind of hostile fire should be answered directly.

• Focus

• Criteria #4: NPOV

• Fair representation

• Minus the concerns below seemed a pretty fair assessment. I wonder if you might even be able to add a few more details from the main articles.

• All significant views

• Without the information from the Sri Lankan side during the actual operation the article comes across as very one sided, nothing a paragraph or two shouldn't be able to fix accordingly.

• Criteria #5: Stable

• Article appears to have had some POV issues in the past but it looks stable now.

• Criteria #6: Images

• Tags/captions

• Fair use images were all tagged and a rationale provided, good work there.

• Lack of

• NA

• Free use

• Can we get an image for the top right corner of the page? It would look more like most articles on the Wiki.

IvoShandor 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Paradropped Supply.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paradropped Supply.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Poomalai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060907053333/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1987/Chapter02.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1987/Chapter02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901094318/http://www.fas.org:80/irp/world/india/raw/ to http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/raw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)