A fact from Indian Armed Forces Tri-Service Commands appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 December 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
The article is long enough and new enough. I see no copyright violations. I assume good faith on the offline references. A QPQ has been completed. The hook is directly cited. The first 7 items under List of joint and integrated commands need to be referenced, despite them having articles. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I came by to promote this, but reading the first sentence of the lead feels like jumping into an ocean without a paddle. What is this article about? Please start with a statement of fact: Jointness and integration in the Indian military refers to ... Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jointness is a suitable word, as per the references used, and accordingly the scope of the article.
Take for example usage of the word "Jointness" in the reference "Joint Doctrine: Indian Armed Forces". There is an entire section called "SECTION I - UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION AND JOINTNESS" (pg.39). The word is used 14 times in the document.
Other references in the article with jointness in the title itself: "Enhancing Jointness in Indian Armed Forces: Case for Unified Commands", "Jointness in India’s Military —What it is and What it Must Be" etc
If somehow 'joint' (from joint warfare) could be placed in the title instead of 'jointness', maybe it would sound better. But cooperation is not a substitute for the word in the context of the article or the references mentioned above. I have used 'inter services cooperation' for the DYK hook as per the quote and the time period of war it references, 1971; as a precursor to the modern usage, and accordingly its placement is in the beginning of the history section. While upfront "inter-service cooperation" my be easier for the general public to understand, don't you think that the phrase does not cover the scope that the article currently aims to cover? DTM (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, inter-service cooperation is a hot contender for the title. As for now I will include it clearly into the lead, also as per suggestion of dyk nom DTM (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]