Talk:Indian Army during World War I/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is a very nicely done article. I like how you have linked the Indian Army's activity to the other aspects of the war, placing it entirely in context. I might have appreciated knowing if there were internal political struggles going on, but perhaps that is another article entirely. I've made some very minor tweaks and grammar/punctuation fixes, nothing major, just to help with clarity and focus. Nicely done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Auntieruth55, please suggest further scope for expansion .I have linked for article regarding political events during the time. Anything Else?

--Vinay84 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay, you've done a very nice job with this. I'd like to see you tackle the larger issues that were brought up during the peer review process (see Faraway's and my comments below). I wouldn't expect you to include everything in one humongous article, but this is an important subject and needs a series, I think. You've done very well so far, and I'd like to see you carry this into a broader project. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations about GA Status

I have serious reservations about the speedy award of GA status to this article right now! An article about a national army should at least also cover:

Command and control structure: Who lead the army, who did he report to for operational command and for political control?
An order of battle, at least to corps or possibly division level is essential.
What was the difference between the Indian Army and the British Army in India and the British Indian Army?
The army contained other corps, yet there is no reference to Indian Artillery and Indian Engineering corps?
The article was submitted for Peer Review - yet, none of those comments were taken into account in the swift transition to GA status. Comments can be found here.

I sincerely believe that this is a GA or even an A-Class article. But it still needs some work, and we should not be submitting articles for peer review, and then promoting them in a parallel course to the review process! I have not reverted the GA status, but I urge you to consider the comments from the MilHist project.

Farawayman (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reservations. Given the standards for GA, I still think this article meets them. It sets up the limitations of the article in the lead, and does not pretend to be a comprehensive article covering all aspects of the Indian army, but rather the various actions of the Indian army in the war. Before it goes to A-class review, other issues need to be addressed, including a few very minor prose issues. These are:

the fraught history of Indian military, especially after 1858;
command and control of the army during the war;
problems of transportation;
the problems of integrating different castes, religions, and ethnic groups into the army (issues of segregation and integration), which is mentioned, but not dealt with in detail;
technological problems, especially vis a vis conflicts between western technology and Indian religious requirements;
and others.

The Command and control structure should, I think, have an article of its own. In the India case, especially, this was a complex and loaded situation.
The orders of battle seem to go into separate "lists"...no problem as far as I can see with not including this in the article, although it should have a separate list.
The differences between the armies, etc., is a comparative article, something to deal with separately, and once that is written, should be integrated back to the basic article.

Regarding the conflicting submissions to GA and peer review, it used to be the policy that there would not be a GA submission while there was an open peer review. I didn't notice that a peer review was still open. Regardless, this really doesn't change my mind about the GA, although it points out to me that I should have made a more elaborate critique. It is still a good article, within the stated limitations on the topic. I'd like to see a series of articles, however, and that needs to be encouraged. Perhaps we can encourage this editor to tackle that kind of project, in a series, rather than asking him to make it all in one fell swoop. I was pleased to see an article of this quality on Indian military at all, and I'd like to see more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention was to limit the scope, then perhaps another title should have been selected, as I dont see the limtation in either the name, or the lead. Be that as it may, lets try to get this to A Class with a scope and quality level which cannot be disputed. I will try to assist wherever I can. Farawayman (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the simultaneous GA and Peer reviews, I was unaware of the policy and the mistake is mine.However, Jim and I have taken the suggestions into account as and when they came .For example, all of AustralianRupert's suggestions were dealt with.

--Vinay84 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I must have missed where it says an article can not go in for PEER and GA reviews at the same time. It common practice to do both, I believed because the PEER review process has no bearing on the article class and its an internal WPMILHIST review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]