Talk:Rama Raghoba Rane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick look at this article and as per my comments at Talk:Jadunath Singh/GA1, this article is also lacking in content so would struggle to be considered a GA. Areas for improvement:

He was nearly 30 at the time he joined the army, so what did he do prior to then?
His death and where he died is mentioned in the lead but not the body of the article (and thus is uncited).
He was the third recipient of the PVM as mentioned in the lead but this fact is not cited nor mentioned in the body of the article.
What postings did he hold prior to his retirement from the army? He earned five MIDs, which are as I understand it are gallantry or exemplary service awards so what are these for?
Any family?
The second sentence of the military career section is out of place chronologically.
Although I did a quick pass of the text, it could do with some further work to tidy up some non-encyclopedic language to make it more concise.

I'll check back in a few days so see how you are getting on. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Many thanks for the review. But the information you've asked for is a bit complicated. Sometimes impossible. However, I'll try my level best to present the information from the sources I have. But this may take a while. So I request you wait for at least another 10 days before I complete the work. I'll inform you once I'm done. Please put the status on hold till then. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I have expanded the article over the areas concerned. This is the maximum that can be presented. Please make any improvements if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, good work on improving the content of this article. I think it is closer to GA standard than the Singh article I am also reviewing. I have done some copy editing but it still needs some work.

Firstly, the MIDs; in the Commonwealth, this is a relatively significant honour and they get published in the London Gazette. I don't know where they get published post-independence, but if they were in relation to his WWII service, then you try try searching the London Gazette. Are post-independence MIDs searchable in the Indian Gazette (or similar publication?)
It is not necessary to have cites in the lead. The lead summarises the main points of the article, all which should be cited.
The first paragraph of the early life section is a little off topic. It is only relevant for the fact about his ancestral village. I suggest amending the sentence "He was the son of R. P. Rane, who was a police constable." to "He was the son of R. P. Rane, who was a police constable from Vhendia village, in North Kanara district of Maharashtra." (move cite 4 as appropriate). Then the 1st paragraph can be deleted.
Where there are groups of cites together, change their order so the numbers are sequential. For example, the order of the cites following the sentence "He was the son of R. P. Rane, who was a police constable." should be 3, then 5. Not 5 and then 3 as it presently reads.
The text of the military career section could do with a polish, to remove repetitious and non-encyclopedic language.
"...in the capacity of a re-employed officer, he offered his services..." It is not clear what this means; do you mean that he was in the reserves and thus could be called up for duty or did rejoin the army in some capacity. If not, then what did he do in civilian life?
You have said previously you prefer a personal life section, but this does make for disjointed, non-chronological reading. If you look at the best Milhist bios, you will find just about all of them are structured chronologically. Accordingly, I have moved the mention of his death to the end of the article.

I will check back on progress in a while, but ping me if you have any questions. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I made improvements as suggested. Please have a look. But the information about his MIDs is not obtainable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Please have a look at the improvements. Unlike the Jadunath Singh article, you've reviewed, this has enough information. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Any update? Please reply. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Hi Krishna, I have been on holiday for a week so did not do much editing over that period. As you may have guessed from my efforts today on this article, I'm now back. Please review my changes to make sure they are supported by your sources. While I have tidied up some sections, the War of 1947 section still needs some work and I will get to this over the next few days. A couple of other points:

This sentence: "For his persistence and leadership qualities, Rane was selected for commission prior to the Jammu and Kashmir operations." What "persistence" he did show? Did he apply for a commission more than once? Also what were the Jammu and Kashmir operations? Did he serve in them? If not, then delete this text as it isn't relevant.
Integrate note B into the main body of the article, it is important enough to justify this. Zawed (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: In the second para of section 2 i.e. his actions during in Burma explains the persistence and leadership qualities. Actually the Jammu and Kashmir operations were nothing but the war of 1947, anyway, tweaked a bit to avoid confusion, and done the latter. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done another pass of the text, please check I haven't made any errors with my changes and that they are still supported by the references. I notice a probable error here: "Rane was awarded the Param Vir Chakra on 8 April 1948". That date that can't be right since it was the start of the advance to Rajuari. Also, the twdi.in links don't work. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Added the archived link. Regarding the date, the date of award is the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: So you are saying that Rane was awarded, i.e received, the Param Vir Chakra on 8 April 1948 for actions that took place from 8 April 1948 to 10 April 1948? Looking at the citation again, it appears to have been published in June 1950 so it would seem that he was awarded the medal at that time. Zawed (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: It may published in 1950, but the date of award is different. Actually Param Vir Chakra was established in 1950 with effect from 1947. In this case the date of award is 8th. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: If the medal did not exist in 1948, he can't have been awarded it in 1948, which is what the text says at the moment. He was awarded it in 1950 for his actions during the period 8 to 10 April 1948. Zawed (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: No, what you understood is not correct. Please read the Param Vir Chakra article—PVC was established on 26 January 1950 (Republic Day of India), by the President of India, with effect from 15 August 1947. The deserved soldiers were mentioned the award after 1950 but with the date of award to their respective actions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: What you mean is that the award has effect from 8 April 1948. For example, I see that there is some monetary perks associated with the Param Vir Chaka so it makes sense in that these perks would be backdated to 8 April 1948 even though Rane did not receive his award until sometime in June 1950. However, this is not the same as receiving the award on 8 April 1948. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: The award may be handed to the recipient after 1950 and so were the perks, but the date of award is 8th, because the it is effective from 15 August 1947. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: The award may be dated 8 April but he didn't receive it, i.e. was not awarded it, until 1950. The text of the article states that he was awarded it on 8 April 1948. This is not accurate and will be confusing for most readers. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Date of any gallantry award doesn't mean that the subject was awarded the medal on the day, but for his actions on the day, and is considered a awarded on the day. This is the standard way followed, you can refer any military biography, if you are not satisfied, let us take a second opinion on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: "Date of any gallantry award doesn't mean that the subject was awarded the medal on the day...": but the current text clearly implies that he was awarded the medal on the day! This is what I recommend you change. All you needed to say is something like: "On 21 June 1950, Rane's award of the Param Vir Chakra, for his actions on 8 April 1948 during the advance to Rajauri, was gazetted. The official citation read: " (I get the 21 June date from the Gazette notification at the bottom of the citation). Zawed (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we got there in the end. Passing as GA now. Article broadly covers its subject in neutral text, is well structured and referenced. Congratulations! Zawed (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]