Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Param Vir Chakra

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Param Vir Chakra[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Param Vir Chakra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the displaying distinguished acts of valour during wartime. PVC is equivalent to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. The article passed a GA review back in February. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Param-vir-chakra-medal.png: is the given tag meant to apply to the medal or the photo?
  • File:Param-Vir-Chakra-ribbon.svg: source link is dead and image is not original enough to qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Greetings Maria, thanks for the review. The tag applies to the medal. Removed the ribbon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Please comment on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would put the copyright expiration date for the medal after the URAA date, and so it would be covered by a restored copyright, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that presents a problem with regards to using it here... Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As the image is the primary representation of the subject, is there any other way to make it allowable? How about NFCC? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, assuming there is no other reason why it would be PD, you could use a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Replaced the image with fair use equivalent. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (leaning oppose, sorry) – an interesting subject worthy of attention, but there are a few areas that need work for A-Class. For example:

  • The lead is insufficiently detailed, and some of what does appear in the lead is absent from the body of the article.
  • The history section describes when the award was created, but does not really go into any specifics on how, why and/or whether there have been any changes over the decades.
  • Eligibility and award criteria are covered in the infobox, but somewhat glazed over in the body.
  • The cancelation section notes that the award can be annulled, but gives no details on what would lead to cancelation nor whether this has occurred.
  • The article contains quite a few grammatical errors or awkward phrasing. Just a suggestion, but it may be worth looking into the Guild of Copy Editors.

I understand that some of the above may reflect a lack of available sources. But as it currently stands, the article at least does not appear to satisfy A2 for comprehensiveness or A4 for writing quality. Just a suggestion, but it may be worth having a look at how the articles on the Victoria Cross for Australia, Victoria Cross for New Zealand and Victoria Cross (Canada) (all Featured Articles) are structured and detailed. That might give you some guide or ideas on how to move forward with this one. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abraham, B.S.: Greetings Abraham, thanks for the comment. I've requested a c/e by GOCE. It'll be done withing a couple of weeks. Between, I'll also try to address your comments regarding lead and comprehensiveness. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abraham, B.S.: The article has been significantly improve in terms of content, and also has been cop-edited by GOCE. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:. Hi Krishna, thanks for letting me know. I will have limited internet access for the next fortnight while I am overseas, so unfortunately it may be some time before I can review the changes, sorry. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abraham, B.S.: A ping to remind. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abraham, B.S.: A ping to remind. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Yes, just waiting for Rupert's points to be addressed before I give this one another pass. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review:

  • The introduction seems to devote more words to the history of gallantry medals in India than the PVC itself.
  • The article notes women are eligible for the PVC, but the final sentence in the lead has "or his family members in case of the recipient's death".
  • As above, has the award, criteria or eligibility of the PVC changed over its existence?
  • The first paragraph in the history section would benefit from further context. For example, what were the EIC gold medals and why were they awarded? Also, it is worth noting that that Indians were not eligible for the VC until 1911, ostensibly as Indian personnel could avail themselves of the IOM.
  • "This was renamed the "Indian Order of Merit" in 1902" – why the quote marks?
  • Indian personnel were also still eligible for the IOM and IDSM during the First World War (this is not clear from the article; it implies the Indian military simply made use of the British honours system)
  • Being rather short, the quote from Cardozo probably does not need to be rendered as a block quote.
  • "To date, the award has not been conferred twice." – Per MoS, you will need to quantify "to date" (i.e. "As of 2017...")
  • "The words Param Vir Chakra are written" – quote marks, rather than italics, should be used here.
  • The eligibility section needs context and introducing – at the moment, the section solely contains quotations.
  • "the only Indian Air Force officer to date" – as above.
  • The are still a few grammatical and awkward prose issues in the history section.
  • Unless I am missing something, the article no longer seems to note that award of the PVC can be cancelled. This is something perhaps worth including, with details on what would cause a cancellation.

This article is looking much more comprehensive and complete than my last review – well done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abraham, B.S.: I have made the required changes, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Almost ready to support, pending a minor tweak or two:
  • The article states "until the Victoria Cross ... was won by an Indian for the first time in 1911". This is incorrect, as the first Indian recipient of the VC (Khudadad Khan) was decorated for his actions in 1914 during the First World War. 1911 was the year Indian personnel became eligible for the VC.
  • The figure given for the VCs awarded to the British Indian Army is slightly misleading, as the majority of the number cited went to British officers or NCOs rather than Indian personnel.
  • The lead notes that the first PVC was awarded to the son-in-law of the medal's designer, but in the body it says he was the brother of her son-in-law. Which one was it?
  • "The PVC's eligibility and award criteria are as follows" – note the source of this information (i.e the Eighth Regulation of ...?)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of my major points have been addressed, so I am happy to support. However, I do have the following (minor) comments that you may like to consider:

  • "In June 1948 the new Indian awards for gallantry ... were finalized." – You will probably need to clarify what you mean by "finalized", particularly as in the next paragraph the article states the implementation (presumably the regulations as well as design) were entrusted to the adjutant general.
  • The regulations section should probably come just after "History", and it may even be worth combining the regulations with design as there is some cross-over between the two.
  • If known, it might be worth including why it was decided (via the 1980 amendment) that the PVC no longer rank as first among the awards of India.

Well done on expanding and reshaping this article into the comprehensive and interesting one it is now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Krishna, I took a quick look and have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citation 17: "The Hindu" should be in italics
  • Citation 41: "India Today" should be in italics
  • the Further reading entry is redundant as it is currently be cited specifically
  • in the References, is there a place of publication for the Higgins work?
  • Note d doesn't seem necessary
  • "Though Ashoka Chakras is placed below..." --> "Though the Ashoka Chakra is placed below
  • there are some US English spelling variations and some British English (either is probably fine, but it should be consistent), e.g. "center" but also "millimetres"
  • I will come back later and take another look once these are dealt with

Continuing my review: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "junior officers honored..." --> "junior officers honoured"
  • "based on English traditions" --> "based on British traditions"?
  • In the history section it jumps from the First World War to post independence. Suggest mentioning that the system that existed during the First World War continued through the second.
  • "Post independence, the British honours and awards system informally came to an end..." --> not sure about this. The system didn't end, did it? Its application to India did (informally at least).
  • "the arguments that led to this were valid": not sure about presenting this in Wikipedia's voice. Probably should be attributed as Cardozo's opinion. I would suggest reworking this slightly by deleting the stem sentence "The arguments that led..." and then just introducing the quote. For instance, "As author Ian Cardozo wrote, "How could the..."
  • there is some repetition in the second last and last paragraphs of the History section (specifically the dates being duplicated). Suggest rewording this slightly
  • suggest that it might make sense to mention how many Indians received the Victoria Cross under the old system
  • "In this were to occur" --> "If this were to occur..."
  • What makes the Topyaps, Factly and Bharat Rakshak websites reliable?
  • some of the titles in the References use irregular caps. I understand that the sources themselves seem to use these but you could probably take the liberty of correcting these. For instance, "Precedence Of Medals" --> "Precedence of Medals"; "How do we Reward the Men in Uniform? A look at the reward extended to Gallantry Award Winners" --> "How Do We Reward the Men in Uniform? A Look at the Reward Extended to Gallantry Award Winners" etc
  • suggest adding the "Wheel of the Brave" translation to the body of the article
  • "paid to his father or mother", "widow" and "awardee along with his": suggest rewording these to be gender neutral as both women and men can receive the award
  • Ok, no worries, but I think better sources might be needed before taking this to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments::

  • "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for displaying distinguished acts of valour during wartime" - I think you need a comma after "decoration", to make clear that the two elements of the definition are distinct.
  • "It was considered "the most coveted gallantry award" for Indians," - considered by whom?
  • "until the Victoria Cross was won by an Indian for the first time in 1911." - unclear if this means that the VC was then more coveted than the PVC, or if this is referring to the DSM.
  • "a draft of the Royal warrant" - capitalisation of "royal warrant"
  • "as India was to become republic" - "a republic"
  • "straight swiveling suspension bar" > "straight-swiveling suspension bar"? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle[edit]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Maha Vir Chakra (MVC), and Vir Chakra (VrC). It would be helpful to say that these are the second and third highest military awards.
  • "Despite becoming an independent country, India still remained a dominion of the United Kingdom." This does not sound right to me, but I do not know how it could be revised.
  • "On 26 January 1950, PVC was established by the President through The Gazette of India, with retroactive effect from 15 August 1950." 15 August 1947?
  • " to build a “wall of valour” in thousand educational institutions across the country." "a thousand"?
  • "221 Param Vir Chakra Winners Every Indian Should Know and Be Proud of" Typo in number.
  • This article looks good and the queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Param_Vir_Chakra&oldid=819773423"