suggest before being appointed to command the 3rd Battalion...
suggest taking the sentence beginning "His distinguished career..." and placing it as the second sentence of the first para
suggest inserting the WWII sentence in the appropriate place chronologically
*"liberation" is a loaded term in most contexts, and am wondering if "independence of Bangladesh" wouldn't be a better and more neutral term to use?
Say what the PV and PB are, but possibly drop the PB from the lead, as I understand it, the PV outranks the PB. Are these post-nominals?
From reading further, it is now apparent that he didn't actually command 3/5 Gorkha Rifles, so this should be dropped from the lead, but it should be noted that he became COAS despite never having commanded at battalion level, that would almost be notable in and of itself, few chiefs would make it to the top without such a command
It should be the Royal Scots
Early life etc*Captain shouldn't have initial caps
what school in Pensacola?
Punjab is linked twice, after the first one, just leave it unlinked
Most people wouldn't know what the Cambridge Board is, it should be linked or an explanation provided
suggest dropping the second instance of "send him to London" and replace it with a comma
drop the from "the Indians"
make it for "commissioning"
replace "who would" with "candidates would"
enroll should be enrol
suggest "with the examination", not "and the exam"
enrolment, not enrollment
*Chetwode should just be "Chetwode" the second time he is mentioned
it should be mentioned that Smith Dun and Musa were chiefs of other countries armies. I suggest ;Manekshaw (India), Smith Dun (Burma), and Muhammed Musa (Pakistan)
the list of firsts is a bit "fancrufty", especially the first to ask for leave and get an extra, the rest is ok
I don't think writing a letter which was published is noteworthy
as the awardees didn't include Manekshaw, they can be dispensed with
Military career*it appears that there were three wars against Pakistan and China, rather than a war against China and three wars against Pakistan
the first para is really for the lead, and duplicates quite a bit of it, it could be dispensed with
the initial para should be broken up chronologically. When he reaches the 54th Sikhs, it should then go to WWII, the bit about the 16th Punjab is post-war and should be moved there
WWII*I think 12 Frontier Force should be 12th
suggest had the rare distinction of being honoured on the battlefield for his bravery to get the intent right
*the chronology of his wounding doesn't seem right, he would usually have been treated by the RMO before being evacuated further (ie to Rangoon) unless his Regimental Aid Post was in Rangoon, which seems unlikely given Manekshaw was wounded near the Sittang River, several hours drive away*state where the Razmak Brigade was deployed*I think 12 Frontier Force should be 12th (2nd time)*Who was General Daisy and what was his command? Link?
Post-independence*I'm not sure about the unit numbering in the British Indian Army and post-partition Indian Army, but if British styles were still used, wouldn't it be the 4th Battalion of the 12th Frontier Force Regiment, and 6th Frontier Force Regiment? Having said that, what a Pakistani unit was renamed later isn't really relevant to Manekshaw's bio
It is mentioned the same way in the source, the Indian Army follows the format as (Battalion Number)/(Regiment Number) Regiment name, something as 2/5 Gorkha, 4/9 Para etc. Anyway changed it for the purpose of a general reader.
*link 16th Punjab Regiment, although our article indicates that it went to Pakistan at partition, which contradicts this article?
It isn't clear where Manekshaw was posted at the time of partition. Was he still at the Military Operations Directorate, or was he back with his parent regiment?
In the second para, it was mentioned that he was MO Directorate.
*the Jammu and Kashmir bit puts the cart before the horse. It should stop at "administrative skills", and delete the next phrase*I understand that the Indian Army way is 3/5 Gorkha Rifles, but it wouldn't be clear to the casual reader that refers to the 3rd Battalion of 5 Gorkha Rifles, so I would put it in full*Pakistanis should be more formal, perhaps "Pakistani forces"*link and re-word the ruler of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, appealed for India to send troops. But the Indian government replied that they would send troops only if Jammu and Kashmir acceded and became part of India. On 25 October...*who or what was V.P. Menon?*link Srinagar*replace "Sam" with Manekshaw*they went flew back to Delhi and drop the comma*not in favour of the deployment*who was Patel? Deputy PM?*not sure what is meant by "and in the right time"
*"and he was" subsequently posted, but wasn't he still at the MO Directorate? What role had he been performing when he went with Menon to Srinigar?
He was not there at the MO then. He was assigned to 16 Punjab, and officiated to the CO of 3/5 Gorkha.
*suggest As a consequence, Manekshaw never commanded a battalion.
to colonel, then brigadier when he was appointed...
*"Hyderabad crisis" seems to be a euphemism for annexation. I suggest you use what the article is called, and explain what it was and when it occurred, just so the reader can tell why Manekshaw and the DO Directorate were involved.*should it be 167th Infantry Brigade? I take it he did not command the brigade on active service?*delete "After commanding an infantry brigade", as it duplicates the previous sentence. Just say "After this..."
*suggest the manuals to be consistent with the tactics employed by the Indian Army*the Imperial Defence College*26th? Infantry Division? also, did/does it draw its traditions from the 26th Indian Infantry Division? If so, despite the apparent WWII scope of the linked article, it may be appropriate to link it there
No this is a different. The 26th Indian Infantry Division was disbanded after the war.
*he inquiredasked what*this whole piece doesn't make any sense in English Manekshaw replied it is the right way to think of his chief, and told Menon to not commit this again. This annoyed Menon and told that if he wants he can sack Thimayya, to which Manekshaw replied, "You can get rid of him. But then I will get another." also, the quote box seems to cover it, so I'd get rid of the quote box and use its contents here instead*In December 1959, Manekshaw was appointed as the commandant of the Defence...
I reworded that a bit to make it understandable. I prefer to keep the quote box to depict the gravity of the situation.
*instead of "army chief", avoid confusion by using the term Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) then using COAS from then on
Thimayya should just be Thimayya, not General Thimayya, he's already been introduced
Thimayya either resigned, or retired, not both
*"who was overruled" is implicit in an appointment against the recommendation of the COAS, delete it
even more powerful
*delete "however," and "by the senior"*anti-national, not anit-national, also what does that mean?
opposed to national interests or nationalism.
*spy overon, and put a comma after Manekshaw
Court of Inquiry doesn't need to have initial caps
*Lieutenant general is linked twice, once with a capital G (which is a redirect)*suggest redlinking Daulet Singh (soldier), as an army commander certainly meets WP:SOLDIER*'no case' should probably be 'no case to answer'
*strictly speaking, it's apparent he wasn't promoted to the position of army commander, he was already a lieutenant general and was appointed to command Western Command. Is there some confusion here over Western Army versus Western Command? Were they the same thing, or different? It appears they have always been called Commands. Same with previous mention of Eastern Command and Eastern Army?
No, in the Indian Army, not every lieutenant-general is an army commander. The Lt Gens who are commanding the commands of the arms are only the army commanders. The terms Western Army and Eastern Army were never used.
Don't use abbreviations without introducing them first (Lt Gen)
Indo-Pak? In full
delete Putting the rumours of Harbaksh Singh taking charge as the COAS to an end, just say "Despite this, "
this implementation of reservations for castes and tribes bears more exploration. This is a system to give positions to people from lower castes and specific tribes as a form of positive discrimination, isn't it? Should be explained, including why he felt that was wrong and why he opposed it. Especially as he was Parsi, and therefore from a minority group.
*J. F. R. Jacob per MOS:INITIALS, but this is a very rambling sentence which doesn't seem to tell us much. M told Jacob to tell Gandhi something, but wouldn't troops be moving into Eastern Command to fight in East Pakistan? Why would they be moving out? Perhaps what is intended is that Gandhi was advised that troops in Eastern Command were being ordered to the border with East Pakistan? But why just there if fighting occurred on the border with West Pakistan as well? What we really need here is a brief explanation of what troop movements were ordered by Manekshaw in response to the Pakistani air attacks (and perhaps what preliminary moves had already been undertaken, given that the war was to be at a time of Manekshaw's choosing).
Why would they be moved in? Eastern Command covers the eastern part, and has already troops within its geographical boundary. Now these troops were ordered to move out of the command, into East Pakistan. The situation, Manekshaw had issued the orders and told Jacob to inform the PM that orders were issued, not advice to issue orders. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
*The whole paragraph beginning with "The veto..." doesn't appear to have a point, tells us little and raises more questions than it answers. When did the Security Council vote? Why was it decisive? What was in the Pakistani messages?
*There is a strong need for more information about what impact/influence Manekshaw had on the fighting. Did he devise the overall war plan, or just get the troops and equipment up to scratch and let his subordinate commanders like Aurora do the fighting? This is important because he is being credited with winning the 1971 war, but it isn't clear why that is the case.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Other than the query about the photograph of him as an older man, Earwig comes up with a 95% chance of plagiarism from a website called Aviation Defence Universe, and a 69.6% possibility of a violation with a blog called veekay-militaryhistory.blogspot.in. The first one in particular is very concerning to me. Was it used to write this article, or is it a mirror of a previous version of this article?
The first one is a mirror of en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sam_Manekshaw&oldid=730644659 this revision, you can clearly observe that. And the second one is because of a comments at the end of the blog. Especially "MG Kapoor said.." diresctly copy-pasted the entire text from section 3.1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure the article meets this criteria, a comment made in previous GARs. There is little if anything about his operational service, such as what impact he personally had on operations in any conflict other than WWII and 1971. For example, he appears to have commanded a division and a higher formation in conflict, but there is nothing about the personal impact or what he brought to the roles he had except as a captain and as COAS. There is also no background to why India launched the 1971 war. This would be necessary context.
I would have expected to see more of the man's personality, as brought out in several quotes and anecdotes from his obituary in The Guardian
I don't believe the infobox photograph currently meets the licensing requirements, in that the Indian Army website doesn't explicitly allow derivative works. Such approval should be sought from the Indian Army and an OTRS tag added when it is received. In the meantime, I don't think it can be used unless it is used under a non-free rationale.
The statue may need a Freedom of Panorama, this has been mentioned in at least one previous GAN
The photograph of him as an older man was allegedly taken after he died..., so I suspect it wasn't taken by the uploader, and that they don't have copyright on it.
A word to the wise. I'm going to explicitly make the rather obvious point that this article clearly did not meet the GA criteria when nominated and when the review began. I could have quickfailed it and slept well that night. But I'm going to see it through and find out if it can be brought up to scratch because I believe all experienced editors have a responsibility to help newer editors to understand what is expected at GA, and because our coverage of Indian military history topics in general is so poor. One of the likely reasons it languished in the queue for so long was probably that most regular reviewers took a look and decided they would have to fail it, and rather than do that, they just left it. I did that more than once when looking at the queue. I strongly suggest you look at all the other articles you have at GAN with an eye for the sort of detail I have raised with this article (and ask the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough c/e), otherwise they will probably remain in the queue or be quickfailed if they are in a similar condition. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean with the other articles? If so, I suggest you go through them carefully and address the types of issues I've picked up on here, then ask for a GOCE c/e. I'll see this one through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
