| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its first GA nomination. This is an article about a Param Vir Chakra (India's highest military decoration) recipient for his actions in 1947–1948 Indo-Pakistani War. The article is currently B-class. The article was reviewed by Zawed while it is GA nominated, and the review is here. There are hardly 2–3 books on this topic, and all of them are referred, and thanks for AustralianRupert for his work. The present content is the max information that can presented. I welcome suggestions to take this to GA standard, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Cinderella157
editI have made a number of edits and posted to the talk page of the article. I have also read the previous GA review. I note the following GA criteria:
The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
I think that the article satisfies this. While it could add additional information as identified in the original GA review to be more comprehensive, I believe it is sufficiently broad in its coverage to satisfy this GA criteria. I do not believe that it is the size of the article that is important, but that it is sufficiently comprehensive within the context of the subject. I believe it is so. To be blunt (with the highest admiration for the man) he appears to be one of us who is not particularly exceptional except for his most exceptional deeds that lead to his award. To this extent, the size of the article is appropriate. I do think that the language might be improved (not withstanding my attempts) but perhaps these are my perceptions. The language appears consistent with the references. Without delving more deeply, I believe it is probably at GA standard if my link concern is addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157: Thanks for the edits and the review. Fixed the links. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by AustralianRupert
editG'day, I've made a couple of minor tweaks recently, please check that you are happy with these changes and adjust as you see fit. One minor thing occurs to me, which is that we don't state clearly what regiment he was assigned to after Partition. I assume that he remained in the Rajput Regiment, is this correct? If so, perhaps this could be clearly mentioned. Perhaps something like this might work: "After Partition, the 7th Rajput Regiment was assigned to the Indian Army. Singh remained with the newly raised Indian regiment, continuing to serve in its 1st Battalion." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)