Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kargil War/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Kargil War

Kargil War

edit

I just decided to get some opinion on this article. the conflict itself was pretty limited so the article probably might not be as lengthy as other war-related ones, but it still looks concise enough. After all I don't find that a FA should only be of a minimum length and brevity is a good thing IMO. Anyway the images are mostly PD and I have ensured that all issues concerning the factual accuracy and neutrality have been properly addressed. I would appreciate any help provided in improving this article and hopefully lead to a FA status. Thanx. Idleguy 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, the article looks quite good! A few suggestions you may want to consider:
  1. The footnotes need to be properly numbered, and any external links in the body of the article should be given their own notes. As it stands, if the article is printed, there is no way to determine what the numbers refer to.
  2. A number of the links in the "See also" section are already given in the text, and should be eliminated if possible. This section should, in general, be of minimal size.
  3. The "Further reading" section should either be merged with the "References" section, if these works were used in preparing the article; or, alternately, moved to the very end.
  4. The "Kargil War in the arts" section should have a few sentences for each item, to avoid the appearance of a trivia list.
  5. Some of the sections, "Protection of National Highway No. 1" in particular, seem a little short. I don't know if any more tactical information about the combat operations involved is available; but short sections tend to be a common cause of objections on FAC.
Many of these points are specifically oriented towards getting the article through FAC; there's no urgent need to rework it if that's not your intention. Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good article, have watched it develop from when it was a POV disaster zone.
  1. Further reading section should probably come after the references section.
  2. Anything with an ISBN number should be listed.

--Stbalbach 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm yet to get into details, but have one first question, Was the war officially declared? To the best of my knowledge, it was not officially declared (unlike the other Indo-Pakistani wars). So this fact needs to be mentioned in the article explicitly. I'll read the article in detail later and hope to comment some more. Thanks. --Ragib 08:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, it wasn't officially declared as a war by anyone but "Kargil War" seems to be the more popular usage, especially so after the end of the conflict. I am planning to add that piece somewhere in the article, that a "war-like state" only existed as per the Indian PM. tx. Idleguy 09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Vietnam War for how the editors handled the "unofficial war" issue.--Stbalbach 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in main article body should be transformed into proper notes/references before any FAC process.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if most of the external links were not used as sources (either major or minor) for the article? The BBC link for instance is one where the information in that news story wasn't used to add anything to the topic but was added to show the impact on civilians, however minor they might be. Another one links to a picture gallery. Basically they are just external links and have had nothing in developing the contents of the article. Tx Idleguy 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of explanations are great could be part of the footnote.. it would add a whole new dimension, a guidence to further reading. --Stbalbach 18:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There seems to be a lot of issues with this article.

  1. This article definately has an Indian bias towards it and can be written in a more neutral tone. I suggest a collaborative effort with Pakistan-based editors.
  2. Brochure-type language in =Location=
  3. Who discovered the inflitrators? Shephards did (and they were never given any recognition)
  4. Mention how India used the media to its advantage.
  5. Captain Vikram Batra's heroics is absent.
  6. Mention why India suffered so many casualties
  7. Mention why India used fighter planes instead of helicopter gunships. (There was a controversy over this)
  8. Explain why India did not indulge in hot pursuit
  9. Mention the heights: 5,000 m +
  10. Mention the temperatures: 4C at night.
  11. 500 casualties seems too low.
  12. I heard reports of Israeli aircrafts being flown into Sri Lanka to supply India with air power in the case of a war. Please verify.
  13. There were some transcripts between the Pak army chief and the Chinese. Extracts could be added.
  14. The pilot was FLight Lieutenant Natchiketa. IIRC
  15. A few days after the war some jehadi elements wanted to cross the LoC. A massive pileup was planned but they were barred by the Pak army from crossing.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Nichalp. After requesting the peer review I found out that there was still a lot of details to be added in the war portion and have been editing it since. Unfortunately few, if any, editors from Pakistan have turned up to objectively edit this though asking them directly should help.
Some clarifications are not provided though it is assumed. For instance the "hot pursuit" was not taken up because India did not want to violate the LOC (that India did not want to violate the LOC is mentioned in the article) but this was only implied in meaning and I'll try to fit in the rationale in the article.
Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after. But the pilot whose body was mutilated was indeed ajay ahuja, and it was this incident that caused a stir. So it is indeed Ahuja's dead body.
I've mentioned the use of media and will soon be adding the impact it had in tilting world opiniong as u said.
Your point no. 6 and no. 11 are contradictory. plz elaborate.
India has an almost clandestine defence relationship with Israel which is almost hard to link but I'll look in that as well as providing more links to transcripts and other valid pointers given to improve this. Thanks Idleguy 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I believe the transcript was between Musharraf and Mohd Aziz when they were in China and not with Chinese officials. That transcript is included in a sublink in the external link in the india today site. But for the sake of easy access I'll include it in the main. Idleguy 04:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natchiketa was the original pilot after whom Ahuja went after: Yeah, he was the first to be shot down, I just wanted you to add his name. IIRC, India's fatalities were somewhere around 1,000. have you crosschecked the figures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I'll link the details on the indian arial assault in Operation Safed Sagar and include the naems of the pilots etc. in that article. The casualties list admittedly is a bit tough to be 100% sure of with many claims etc on both sides and I've included the official stats. The 1,000 casulties figure is correct when counting the injured and the dead and I'll make the appropriate changes. Idleguy 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, the caption to the main photo appears to be inaccurate - unless it is being used in the direct fire role against Pakistani soldiers at the same altitude (which isn't likely as this would typically represent a miss-use of towed medium artillery), the Indian artillery gun appears to be in a travel configuration, at least while being photographed. --Nick Dowling 11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kargil_War/archive1&oldid=1138562586"