Talk:Battle of Cochin

MILHIST initial assessment

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)

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)

References

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)

@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)

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)

Pinging @Sitush here. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Why is this whole article written by an ESL?

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

Missing info on the infobox

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

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