Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Cochin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST initial assessment

[edit]

Despite extensive citations, they are incomplete and two different styles are in use(in text and inline). So can only be start class but could easily go to B and beyond if this were addressedMonstrelet (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain a little more clearly what you mean?, e.g. with some examples. Not challenging your assessment, just seeking guidelines as how to improve it. Walrasiad (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I have made a massive removal of citations as they fails to follow WP:RAJ. The only sources that can be usable according to this is:

1.) Mathew, K.S. (1997) "Indian Naval Encounters with the Portuguese: Strengths and weaknesses", in Kurup, editor, India's Naval Traditions, New Delhi: Northern Book Centre. Monteiro, S. (1989) Batalhas e Combates da Marinha Portuguesa, Vol. 1 (1139–1521) Lisbon: Sa da Costa.


I am not sure if they are reliable sources. Please add suitable references. Most of the paragraphs are existing since a long time without even being cited by a source. Ajayraj890 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad, issue is commented above. The references falls under WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:PRIMARY (need to confirm). Provide reliable and modern sources. Imperial[AFCND] 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAJ goes to a user page. Not sure what that is.
Unfortunately, this area tends to be under-researched, so there are hardly any modern works on them. These well-known works are the only references to these events. They are meticulously referenced, and can be accessed directly by any reader for verification. Please don't delete them. Walrasiad (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sitush here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RAJ page (and WP:HISTRS) are both widely accepted. Furthermore, the RAJ page links to specific examoples demonstrating the community consensus for not using such old sources. That consensus has been around for a long time, supported at venues such as WP:RSN and WT:INB. Thus, it's a bit more than a "user page". - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this whole article written by an ESL?

[edit]

The broken English and conversational idioms are in every single paragraph. 222.102.37.190 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info on the infobox

[edit]

The infobox is incomplete, it necessitates a casualities section and a forces section Antiparcialidade (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the part is unsourced. That's the primary issue the article have. Imperial[AFCND] 07:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]