Talk:Param Vir Chakra/GA1

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The footnotes' grammar needs to be adjusted.

*a: PVC was established on 26 January 1950 (Republic Day of India), by the President of India, with effect from 15 August 1947.

But it should read as: *a:The PVC was established on 26 January 1950 (Republic Day of India) by the President of India, but went into effect on 15 August 1947.

*b: Though Ashoka Chakrais placed below PVC in the order of precedence, it is considered as a peacetime equivalent to Param Vir Chakra.
but I think it should read as: *b:Though Ashoka Chakras is placed below the PVC in the order of precedence, it is considered as a peacetime equivalent to Param Vir Chakra.
Fixed this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. The one sentence is still not quite phrased as correctly as it should be, there's still "with effect from" which would be better rendered as "but went into effect on". Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Actually, I don't think so. Because the award was put into effect from 15 August 1947, which is a date prior to 26 January 1950. So obviously you are bringing in a date from the past of the this date. So "from" is better than "on". For broader understanding, actually the award was created in 1950, but it was considered from 1947. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood the backdating of the award from 1950-1947 - I read the article. I also understand the intent of the sentence completely but I have never heard or read the word choices or the phrasing as it now stands in the article. Is it completely wrong grammatically? No. Is the sentence constructed according to common usage? No. Could it be constructed differently and still convey your intentions, even if you don't use my suggestions? Yes. Will I not pass this article to GA status because you & I disagree on this point of grammar? No, but I still think I am not wrong on this issue. Reading through this one more time today and will finish up my Review later.Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
There is a large amount of commonality with a youtube video but the video was published on January 12, 2017 and at least part of the WP content was written on December 19. The commonality is not a concern to me, in my opinion the other site is mirroring WP. Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: It was copied from the article. The other ones are due to the award's eligibility criteria, which is defined by the constitution and cannot be modified. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
There was some recent POV-editing but this doesn't seem to be a persistent issue. Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Param-vir-chakra-medal.png has an odd deletion notice on it - I'm not all that familiar with Commons, but this needs looking in to. Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of the issues. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article is on hold pending one last proofreading readhthrough (I always do these to check and see if I missed anything of a GA type of concern) and the adjustment of that one "effect from" phrase - I will then be able to complete my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, well-written article about a subject I previously knew nothing about but that was fascinating nonetheless.

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Going forward/future improvements - On my last readthrough I did notice that all the pronouns regarding awardees are masculine - does the wording of the award itself specify only male members of the Indian military forces can be awarded this honor or if it is open to all? I mean, I understand that the people awarded this honor up to now have all been men but could it possibly be awarded to a woman? If the wording of the award is indeed gender-neutral there are also female pronouns - such as "widow" - that should be changed to "surviving spouse". Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Discussion

Friendly Comment Greetings. I find the use of "also" in the article a bit weird. I'm talking about the use in regards to the "cash allowances" both in the lead and in the allowances subsection. I think implied somehow is that "Beyond the obvious honor, there is also a cash allowance" - something like that I would think the author meant to say. Maybe similarly "besides the medal, there is also [...]" was meant. As it is I feel the word "also" is a bit wrongly used.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwarf Kirlston: Thanks for taking a look. Fixed them. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink:@Dwarf Kirlston: Do you seriously think this poorly written article is GA class? In the quality scale of wikipedia it is not even a C-class article. Look at the examples, e.g. Bishop (chess). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: What make you think so? It meets the GA criteria, it is well written, it is verifiable, and no OR, broad in coverage, neutral in tone and is stable, the images have appropriate licensing. Anyways this is not the right place to discuss this. If have any concerns regarding the GA status of the article, please discuss it at WP:GAR. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My post was not addressed to you user:Krishna Chaityanya Velaga. I am asking that the editor who granted it that label explain how it compares favorably with any of the examples given in Wikipedia's quality scale for GA, B, or even C. I've done my share of FAC reviewing. It's not like I don't know what standards are about. (Click on any of those reviews and see my comments.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]