Hello:

I went through the article Khums recently copy edited by a new member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I fixed a number of issues with the wording, fonts, and Wikilinks etc... One thing I did notice is that the citations are inconsistent and really need some work. In the "India" section I used this incredibly useful tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ProveIt ProveIt and fixed a couple of the citations. When you select the template, Journal, for example it automatically places the article in quotation marks and the journal name in italics etc... You might want to install it an go through the citations and fix them.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Hi Saff, Many thanks for this new article. It seems, however, that most of the contents of the article is already covered in another article. Your new creation does not seem to be an article split, but rather a WP:POVFORK. You are welcome to work on the main article if you believe the contents presented there is unbalanced. Pls also see WP:SPLIT on creation of article splits. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman:, I am confused! You merged my article just a moment after its creation. As you mentioned, splitting or merging needs to knowing other user opinions. The subject is notable and will be developed, why do you say it covers material from another article without giving time!Saff V. (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new article would have been in scope of criteria for speedy deletion WP:A10 as it "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject". In addition, it changes the point of view of the existing section. Such point of view forks should be resolved by engaging with existing editors in the existing article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: You immediately deleted this notable subject and well sourced material based on A10, while  by adding new material to existing article, it would become long and split would be needed! It's not normal to my eyes that you delete it because of “it changes the point of view of the existing section”. what is the problem with the changing?you don’t engage discussion to let us enjoy other users opinion rather than lay on just your idea.Saff V. (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]