Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian National Army/archive2

Indian National Army[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because article is too long ,NPOV,The ToC is overwhelmingly long…

Thanks, Roh^G??· 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

Just a few quick thoughts;

I'm not sure I agree with the article being "too long". It's at almost 5,900 words, not counting the bullets, and with bullets probably around 6,500. This is on the low end of the WP:SIZE recommended guidelines of 6,000-10,000 maximum word count, and I know I've seen articles much longer.
Check English variations - I see defence and defense, recognize and recognise, etc.
Check weasel wording and make sure that sourcing is up to snuff - for example, the "is considered" in the first paragraph of the Troop strength section needs a qualifier (by who is it considered) and a source (for the statistics and the considering).
There are a lot of bullet-pointed lists in the article - it should be considered whether these could be turned into prose, as I think many of them could.
I'm not sure what the purpose is of having the bullet pointed references in both the notes section and the refs section.
What makes Ref #69 (Rose India) a reliable source? Check other refs for reliability, and, if aiming for FAC, high quality.
Some areas need checking for referencing - especially on statistics and opinion. For example, last paragraph of Second INA section (45 kids, "affectionately known"), second paragraph of INA in operation (opinion attributed to Sahgal), second paragraph of Relations (opinion attributed to Fraser), etc.

These are my thoughts for now. I think that attention is needed most significantly on the referencing, and once that has been done, the format and length of the article will fall into place more easily. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No edits have been made to the article since Dana's excellent review. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]