Talk:Field marshal (India)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Needs references. LordAmeth 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why use the term, Royal Indian Army? Even though there were RIN and RIAF, it was never the Indian Army which was Royal but its units! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.42.63 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by another editor prematurely, but the consensus below supports the move anyways. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

---

List of Field Marshals (India) → Field marshal (India) – Even though it is a list, tt is the standard naming convention followed while naming the articles related to a particular military rank of a country. Also the format is prose than a list. For example, Field marshal (United Kingdom), Field marshal (Serbia and Yugoslavia), Field marshal (Finland). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, this seems like a reasonable move, IMO, given the precedent of the other articles. Given that there are only a couple of list items, it seems more of an article to me, anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support: much less of a list than some of the 'non-list' article examples brought up by the nom. Ebonelm (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. A "list" of two isn't really a list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support: "List" is a misleading description of the content. Jellyman (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Field marshal (India)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	on all "ceremonial" occasions? The second "was" Have there been any conferrals of the equivalent rank in the other two services? Something that should be in the lead and body. In the infobox, with the the equivalent ranks, air force is listed above the navy? Is that the order of seniority of the three services in the Indian Armed Forces? Where you use an initialisation, such as CDS, the initials of the initialisation should all be in initials capitals ie Chief of the Defence Staff, same later with the COAS, and once you've used the acronym, use it from then on Where are the five stars in the infobox actually used? car pennants? This should be explained in the body of the article. suggest using the same nomenclature for COAS, unless it changed between Cariappa and Manekshaw's terms, Cariappa is mentioned as commander-in-chief In 1947, when Carippa took over, the position was called commander in chief, later it was re designated as COAS If I remember correctly, Manekshaw didn't actually command 3/5th Gorkha Rifles, so it doesn't make any sense to include that field Marshal should be field marshal, and later field-marshal should be field marshal, be consistent in the article
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	per WP:LEADCITE, I can't see anything that needs a citation, so long as everything in the lead is covered by information in the body of the article (which is required). Suggest ensuring that everything in the lead is covered in the body first, then eliminating the citations from the lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	assuming all information is cited in the body (instead of only in the lead), this looks ok.
	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).	there is a typo in the citations, Orbituary should be Obituary. what makes scoopwhoop a WP:RS? It is maintained by a editorial board. All the submissions are first screened by an editorial board and then published. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Likewise with ssbcrack and ejyoti?
	2c. it contains no original research.	My only concern here is the quality of a few of the sources
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	what is the underlying copyright on the design of the FM rank insignia? The rank was established on 26 January 1950, and is a PD now in India, I have added the tag. Please see the commons page of the image. Also for the following. what is the reference for the design of the FM rank insignia and the star insignia in the infobox? Per the Manekshaw GAN, the Indian Army website doesn't explicitly allow derivative works, so the Cariappa pic needs approval from the Indian Army and an OTRS tag. I don't think it can be used under a non-free use rationale. Removed this one.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, but copyright licensing is an issue with all three, see above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for the above points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Passing Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Peacemaker67: I have done the changes, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Hi Krishna, a few still need to be addressed. I've stricken those I'm happy with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Peacemaker67: Hi PM, provided the clarifications. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Field Marshal (India).gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir Kodandera Madappa Cariappa

Why is he a SIR? There is nothing in his page that says he was knighted. I'm assuming this is a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.18.165.42 (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)