Talk:Battle of Thorgo

Battle of Thorgo was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 6, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 July 2024 by reviewer Jamiebuba (talk · contribs).

Military history: Technology / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Cold War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Bunnypranav, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 24 November 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

GA Review

Unsuccessful. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Thorgo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rahim231 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I am quick-failing this nomination. It needs a significant copy-edit for sentence structure and concision. I recommend trying to split up sentences whenever possible, and then recombining them judiciously. Then, you should request a copy edit at WP:GOCER. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The first paragraph is one run-on sentence, and there are a lot of other run-on sentences, such as the last sentence of the lead, the second paragraph of the "Prelude" subsection, and this sentence: Due to the only broken W/T communication set which the relief forces had, with no possibilities of repair, Col. Thapa was unable to inform the relief forces of the incoming Gilgit scouts and even after informing the Srinagar Headquarters and requesting airstrikes against the scouts but strikes were not conducted. There are miscapitalized words throughout, for example: On 15 February From the lookouts of the Skardu garrison ....

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Minor issue, but the first section heading is titled "Prelude", and its first subsection is also called "Prelude".
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
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):
Based on the sources cited in our article on Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Saraf (2015) has borderline reliability. Spot check not completed.

C. It contains no original research:
Spot check not completed.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Spot check not completed. Earwig's tool looks okay.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article does not provide adequate background for a reader unfamiliar with the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948. For example, it never explains who the "Gilgit scouts" were. The article also never states which of the various military elements the various named commanding officers fought for (e.g., which company or battalion or even army).

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It's hard to parse out what is significant and what is minor because of the sentence structure.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article seems biased towards the Pakistani side of the conflict, but it's hard to tell because of the sentence structure.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The captions suffer from the same sentence structure issues as the body.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Hello @voorts,

I saw the review made by you regarding this article, I have made edits keeping in view each problem i hope those are solved please have a look. another issue raised was regarding the reliability of the Book source by Saraf stating having borderline reliability.

Even though most of the books on Indo Pakistani wars are mostly written in a biased manner or in patriotic tone in which this book is no exception, but the reliability of this book is ensured since it cites the official Pakistani history Book on this War the "Kashmir Campaign 1947" (Published 1971) Which is a restricted book only available to high level officials. The book is written by Justice Muhammad Yusuf Saraf (born 1923) who was the Chief Justice of the Azad Kashmir High Court, he was personally given permission by the president of that time Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq for citing the official history book in this source. This pretty much makes it a reliable source, it also cites in references on certain events from different books.

The author declares this information in his book Page number 4 https://archive.org/details/part-ii-kashmiris-fight-for-freedom-vol-2-1947-1978-by-yusuf-saraf Rahim231 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the reliability of this book is ensured since it cites the official Pakistani history Book on this War the "Kashmir Campaign 1947" (Published 1971) Which is a restricted book only available to high level officials. While it might be reliable, it is also probably biased since it's the secret, official state history, so relying mostly on that violate WP:NPOV. I also think the block quotes should be summarized. Additionally, I think the sentence structure issues are still there and I'm seeing some typos, such as During the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948[space before comma],. Finally, there's still a lack of clarity. For example: Colonel Sher Jung Thapa belonging to state forces – which state forces? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean but i haven't solely relied on the source, According to WP:ALLOWEDBIAS

"However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.".

The source by has been only cited thrice while in the article i have mostly cited mostly books by Professor Dani and S.N Prasad and Singh, K Brahama. I have done changes further as said. Rahim231 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]