Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Hamid (soldier)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No citation links to reference Rawat; is this deliberate? Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Some sources are a little jingoistic, but IMO acceptably reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) This seems light on images. Is there not something generic which could be added? Eg a picture of a Patton tank? A map showing the location of the action would also be helpful. Is it possible to include an image of the commemorative stamp? Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A solid and exhaustive study of a fascinating incident. Good work and deserving of Good Article status.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Some prose points:

  • "As a prelude to Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan attempted..." could leave readers a little puzzled. How about "As a prelude to Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan's strategy to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir, and start a rebellion against Indian rule, Pakistani forces attempted..."?
  • "From 5 to 10 August 1965, Indian troops uncovered a mass infiltration. From captured documents and prisoners, Pakistan's plans to capture Kashmir with a guerrilla attack were brought to light..." Two consecutive sentences start with "From". Possibly change the second to "Captured documents and prisoners revealed Pakistan's plans to capture Kashmir with a guerrilla attack..."?
  • "east of Ichogil Canal". Should be "the Ichogil Canal".
  • "and dug 3-foot (0.91 m) trenches by dawn." Should be "and had dug".
  • "Hamid led the RCLR detachment of his battalion". At some point you need to explain to the readers just what a RCLR is. Also, on first mention it should be named in full.
  • "and Pakistani soldiers in the two following tanks fled"; "the Pakistani soldiers in the following tanks again fled". The word "in" is used. Does this mean that the Pakistani crews abandoned their tanks?
  • "By the end of the day, an engineering company laid anti-personnel..." Should be "had laid".
  • "They were attacked by Pakistani..." Could we specify "They"? Possibly "The battalion was..."?
  • "The Pakistanis made armoured attacks at 9:30 and 11:30 am and 2:30 pm." Should be "...at 9:30, 11:30 am and 2:30 pm."
  • "The first wave of three tanks, one leading and the other two following at a 200-yard (180 m) distance, arrived on 10 September at about 8:00 am." Change to "On 10 September at about 8:00 am the first wave of three tanks, one leading and the other two following at a 200-yard (180 m) distance, arrived."
  • "retired Indian Army general Ian Cardozo said that the award citation". I think that "retired Indian Army general Ian Cardozo has written that the award citation" would be more accurate.

Otherwise the prose is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
  • This seems light on images. Is there not something generic which could be added? Eg a picture of a Patton tank? A map showing the location of the action would also be helpful. Is it possible to include an image of the commemorative stamp?
  • No citation links to reference Rawat; is this deliberate? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for the review. I've addressed your comments above, please have a look at the article. Please elaborate your last point. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is just enough to satisfy the image criterion. In case you do want to add a Patton tank there is a nice picture here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Destroyed_Patton_Tank_(1965_Indo-Pak_War).jpg, or pictures here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pakistani+tank&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=dgrtkjxr92b3czr7ypomy0c3i .
Your 5th "reference", which is The Brave: Param Vir Chakra Stories, by Rawat, does not have any citations in the articles referring to it. So you need to either put in a new cite linking to it, or move it to the "further reading" section. Hopefully that is clearer. If not, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I didn't not use the first image because it doesn't seem to be original (125 KB file), no source information. Fixed the reference issue. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The images now look very classy. However, your second map, Jammu and Kashmir, isn't set up correctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I preferred the 'multi-choice' map you had before. You may want to consider reinstating it, either with the Jammu and Kashmir map fixed, or simply deleted. Be that as it may, it is certainly now up to B class. Good job. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Hamid_(soldier)/GA1&oldid=1038145333"