Talk:Operation Poomalai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

An entry from Operation Poomalai appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 October 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

Operation Poomalai was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 16, 2007

Contents 1 WPMILHIST Assessment 2 GA failed 2.1 Good article review 2.2 More specific comments

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

Thank you for your hard work in producing a lengthy, interesting, and well-written article. However, the introduction is written with the assumption in mind that the reader knows that Sri Lanka is being discussed. References to Tamils, Columbo, and Jaffna imply it, but it should be explicitly expressed as early in the article as possible that this takes place in Sri Lanka and which events/war this relates to. Thank you. LordAmeth 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

The GA nomination has failed, for now. After you address the issue laid out below feel free to renominate it. I will be posting my full review with intense comments shortly. Thank you for your patience. IvoShandor 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   [[Image:|15px]]

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   [[Image:|15px]]

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

[edit] More specific comments

• Criteria #1: Well written.

• Prose:

• Numerous specific problems here caused this article to fail GA criteria #1. It appeared that the article was written by a non-native English speaker, which is fine, but it appeared, as well, that the article had received a copy edit from a native speaker, however, numerous errors were missed.

• Look for long run on/awkwardly worded sentences, an awkward and major grammatical error, example:n the 1970s, two major Tamil parties united to form the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) that started agitation for a separate state of Tamil Eelam within the system in a federal structure in the north and eastern Sri Lanka[4] that would grant the Tamils greater autonomy.
• There was more than one occurance of this kind of mistake, look for them. Read stuff aloud if you unsure, if it sounds weird or is hard to say, it is probably an awkward sentence or run on or fragment or the like and should be reworded.

• Watch for redundancies, for example: has been --> "was"

• A thorough copy edit or two is very necessary in this case.

• Structure

• Overall pretty good, with any expansion make sure you add appropriate sections accordingly.

• MOS

• The bold is unnecessary, use only in the first mention of the title within the lead.
• Go ahead and use the second tier headline instead of the third: ==headline==
• Combine any one sentence paragraphs into the paragraph above or below them.
• Make sure the lead represents a good summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD, it should be able to stand alone if it had to. Also assure the lead length conforms to the above guideline.
• Srilankan Navy: Wouldn't it be "Sri Lankan Navy"? Be consistent here.

• Jargon

• Gp Capt
• Wg Cdr
• Coramandel coast: Should be wikilinked if possible
• 1500 Hours: I don't know if military time or the 24 hour clock is desirable or necessary. You decide.
• feet: Should be wikilinked on its first occurence and the metric equivalent should be given in parenthesis after each measurement.

• Criteria #2: Verifiable

• References

• References are not properly formatted, see WP:CITE, WP:CITET (these templates will give you an idea of what information to include even if you don't use them), WP:RS.

• Inline citations

• In line citations in the middle of sentences are awkward and very distracting to the reader, just move them to the end of the sentence.

• Reliable

• Without proper citation information the reliability of the sources is very hard to judge.

• Original research

• Again proper use of references is essential in this article

• Criteria #3: Thoroughness

• Major aspects

• What happened on the Sri Lankan side of things? How did their military and government respond to the incursion? Not having this can slant the article's POV.
• What was the outcome of the humanitarian crisis that the operation was meant to alleviate? What happened to the people?
• The question of whether or not there was any kind of hostile fire should be answered directly.

• Focus

• Criteria #4: NPOV

• Fair representation

• Minus the concerns below seemed a pretty fair assessment. I wonder if you might even be able to add a few more details from the main articles.

• All significant views

• Without the information from the Sri Lankan side during the actual operation the article comes across as very one sided, nothing a paragraph or two shouldn't be able to fix accordingly.

• Criteria #5: Stable

• Article appears to have had some POV issues in the past but it looks stable now.

• Criteria #6: Images

• Tags/captions

• Fair use images were all tagged and a rationale provided, good work there.

• Lack of

• NA

• Free use

• Can we get an image for the top right corner of the page? It would look more like most articles on the Wiki.

IvoShandor 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)