Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Param Vir Chakra recipients/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

edit

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. Back in November 2016, the list has passed a thorough A-class review from Military history. All the information is cited, and all the sources used are meet WP:RS. The list was constructed on par with List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army etc. which are featured lists. So I think there won't be much trouble regarding the FLC criteria. I welcome suggestions for the same. By the way, the list is about the recipients for the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Alt text is missing from the images.
  • Delink 'India' in the opening sentence, since WP:OLINK says that 'the names of major geographic features shouldn't be linked.
  • Indo-Pakistani conflicts --> Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
  • In the second para, the words "..of India" is repetitive. You can remove it in one of the instance.
  • Indian Army is linked twice in the lead.
  • Times of India --> The Times of India
  • Are "Factly", "Topyaps" and "knowingindia.gov.in" RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Many thanks for the review. All the issues raised have been fixed. Regarding the last one, http://knowindia.gov.in is an official site from the Government of India, the domain ".gov.in" makes that clear. Factly is strictly constrained by an editorial board, so this can be accepted. Also the content from Topyaps is tailored, the about us section on the site make it clear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced by Topyaps, you can replace it with a much reliable source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashthepunisher: Done, good catch. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Feels like "the" should be before "one of the Indian Air Force."
  • Add "a" before "provision" at the start of the third paragraph, and remove "the" before "one recipient".
  • The abbreviation MTNL could stand to be spelled out.
  • In the table, Elisabethville isn't sorting in the correct order; it's appearing at the end. A sort template of some type may be needed here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for the comments. Fixed all of them, expect the first one. I request you to elaborate on that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence as a whole reads, "Twenty recipients were members of the Indian Army, one of the Indian Air Force", which is ungrammatical in its current form. By making it, "and one of the Indian Air Force" or similar, the sentence would work better as a whole. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Tweaked it. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The fix to the last issue I had looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Upon seeing Fowler's oppose, I looked at the main article and can understand why that user would think a split may not be justified. I actually think that if the list was in the main article, that the main article could potentially be eligible for FL status, as the tables would take up most of a combined page. As it stands, however, I do think this is likely a violation of criterion 3b. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would like to see less raiding, of well-established articles, for the creation of content forks that allow easy FLC runs. Seriously, what is the game here? Look how you have mangled the Param Vir Chakra page in the process. There was no talk page discussion before you removed the list from a relatively short article. Do you seriously think we are that clueless? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: In the first place, there is a reason to separate the list. Param Vir Chakra is India's highest gallantry award. Its list of recipients list is good enough to sustain a separate article. If you observe the other countries gallantry award recipients list, there are separate lists. And with 21 recipients and with the current format, it would make the main article ling. When I separated the list from the article, the columns like, date of action, conflict and citations never existed. So if these were part of the article, it would get complicated. I never mentioned about the "clueless" thing, I have improved the original PVC to GA, and this has already passed A-class review from MILHIS project, which is arguably the largest project on en wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have templated the PVC article for issues I see there, which, in turn, are discussed on the article's talk page. Please reply there.
I will return to whether this list is comparable to the hundreds (of not thousands) of the VC, but here are some questions about the lead:
  • "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the highest degree of valour or self–sacrifice in the presence of the enemy."
    • Is there more than one award for the highest degree of valour or self-sacrifice? Or is there an non-defining relative clause that is not being separated by a comma?
    • What do the terms "highest degree," "self-sacrifice," and "in the presence of the enemy" mean? They might belong to the typically ceremonial language the award citation uses, but what do they mean in WP:NPOV language?
  • "The medal has been awarded twenty-one times, including fourteen posthumous awards; sixteen were awarded for action in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, and two for action in peacekeeping operations."
    • Did you mean to say, "including fourteen times posthumously?"
  • "Of twenty-one, twenty recipients were from the Indian Army, and one from the Indian Air Force."
    • Did you mean to say, "Of the twenty one recipients, twenty were ...?"
  • "Literally meaning "Wheel (or Cross) of the Ultimate Brave", the Param Vir Chakra is comparable to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. (cited to a high school education publishing website, NCERT, and Priya Aurora (27 December 2013). "7 Facts Average Indian Doesn't Know About Param Vir Chakra". Topyaps. Retrieved 4 September 2016.."
    • The (present) participle clause "Literally meaning ..." applies to the award's name in Sanskirt/Hindi, not to the award itself. It is a little confusing when in the main clause the subject becomes the award itself.
    • Why does a reader need to know the "literal" meaning of an award's name, when we haven't been told the transformed, figurative, or metaphorical meaning, especially when the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary defines "chakra" in this latter sense to be "medal," and "param" to be highest?
    • Why is an interpretation offered at a website of the government of India the touchstone of the (award) name's meaning? Where are the secondary sources that have been vetted for scholarship?
    • According to whom is it similar to the medal of honor or the VC, and in what manner is the award similar?
That this this article is a content fork is demonstrated in my post at Talk:List_of_Param_Vir_Chakra_recipients#Content_fork. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga there seems to be an evolving consensus against this being promoted, particularly in light of a possible 3b violation. Do you wish to continue with the nomination and attempt to address these concerns (nothing appears to have happened here for a few days) or shall I archive it for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and Fowler&fowler: Back in September 2016, when I separated the list from the article, I felt that the list would bloat the article. But as the consensus it that it would not, I see no requirement for separate page. Please archive this discussion and the list be merged with the main article. As Giants2008 said, the original article would be potentially eligible for FL status, I will work on the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Param_Vir_Chakra_recipients/archive1&oldid=1162219691"