Talk:Sam Manekshaw/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • For an article of this length, the lead should be at least two paragraphs, according to WP:LEAD. The lead should provide a summary of the body of the article, without including new information. Leads generally don't include references, although the final decision on this is the decision of the main editor.
   • The "famous quotations" section is unnecessary. If these quotes are truly notable, they should be integrated into the body to provide context and flow.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I see that another editor recently added several "citation needed" tags to the article. I agree with these tags, as the article needs significant attention to references before it is of GA status. In addition to the tagged areas, the "Rank promotions" section is entirely unsourced, as the "reference" at the end is more of a note (providing additional information, rather than a source), which is also unsourced.
   • Ref #12 should note that it is a portion of a book. Due to this, "rediff" is not the publisher, whoever published the book is.
   • Are refs #4 and 18 (Leadership: Sam Manekshaw) the same thing? Also, page numbers would be helpful.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • I think there could be significantly more detail in the article, given the number of sources focused on the man (which appear to include at least two full books). For example, a single (short) paragraph is given to his leadership during the 1971 war. Is there really nothing more that can be said? What was it about his leadership style that allowed the war to be won so quickly? Was it brilliant planning on his part or poor planning on the part of the Pakistanis that allowed over 90,000 prisoners to be taken in less than 2 weeks?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am failing this article's GA nomination, due mainly to the referencing deficiencies and broadness concerns. These upgrades will take a significant amount of work, and are best completed outside of the time constrains of the GA process. When the above concerns have been addressed, the article can be renominated at GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)