Talk:Battle of Longewala/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a review for this within the next few days. Then we can see how close it is to the good article criteria and what changes it might need to become a GA.

Smahwk, I've reviewed the article's uses of sourcing, and it falls far below what is expected of a good article. I found several places where the article misrepresents what the source is saying, acting like the source says things that it doesn't. You should be able to go to any sentence in the article, and the next in-line citation should be able to verify that sentence. There are also points where it looks like the article is copying the wording used by the source, which is plagiarism. This can't be considered a good article until the citations are completely cleaned up and redone, and there shouldn't be any places where the wording of the article seems to have been copied directly. There are also other issues with the text that I didn't get to: it editorializes a lot by saying that things are good or bad, it uses different language to refer to the army of Pakistan (always "Pakistani forces" or "Pakistani troops") and the army of India (which is sometimes just "the Indians"), and many of the items in the infobox aren't sourced or mentioned in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback ,I want to say that the part of the article you are referring to was written before Singh published his book and is therefore not a case of close paraphrasing.It is possible however that a major contributor to the article (not me) could have copied from Ludra (2001).Also ,The Times of India is simply giving an account of what happened in the battle.Zameer Uddin Shah was a senior Indian Army General who was serving with an artillery unit which was on standby a few miles away from Longewala when the battle took place.That article is less of an opinion piece and more like an account of how he recalls the battle and the days leading up to it.Bharat Kumar is an Indian Air Force officer who wrote a book analyzing the role of his service branch in the Battle of Longewala .

Smahwk (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: the text similar to Singh (2022) was added by this edit in 2007, and then you found the citation and added it. This either means that the person who added it stole it from something else previously written by Singh, or that Singh stole it. Either way, it's the job of the nominator to make sure that each part of the article is good, even the parts that they didn't right. I know I've been stumped in a few of my nominations by parts I didn't write and thought were good. A lot of the sources here are out of place, and every part of this article is going to need some fixing.

For the other sources, we don't trust Times of India to be reliable for many things, so it shouldn't be used here. And any sources that are personal accounts should be limited; anything more than a basic fact should be attributed in text so we know that it's the author's personal experience and not something that an expert wrote. I think the best option at this point is to close the review so the article can be reworked, and then you'd be able to nominate it again whenever you think it's ready. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the personal accounts cited in the article do not mention anything extraordinary.

I will be try to improve the article, can you review it when I renominate it? Smahwk (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, renominate it whenever the problems are resolved. If you want more perspectives on the article, WikiProject Military History is one of the most active WikiProjects, and there are a lot of editors there with more expertise in this area. I'll close the review now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

"The 1971 Battle of Longewala: A night of confusion, Sam Manekshaw’s order, Pakistan’s folly" is an opinion piece. Opinions here should not be taken as facts. If the article uses any of the opinions here, it should make it clear that they are just the opinions of Zameer Uddin Shah.
globalsecurity.org is unreliable. Both of the places where it's used should be replaced with a better source.
What makes Kumar (2020) a reliable source? Is Natraj Publishers a well-established academic publisher? Is Bharat Kumar an expert on Indian or Pakistani military history?
The Times of India is unreliable for political content.
What is Imprint?
This isn't relevant to the GA criteria and it won't affect the review, but I suggest cleaning up some of the citations. Some of them are missing information like the author, the publisher, and the date of publication.

Spot checks to make sure the article accurately summarizes the sources without plagiarizing them:

Singh (2022):
- The article says Immediately after PAF strikes on Indian airfields on 3 December, Chandpuri dispatched a 20-man-strong patrol under Second Lieutenant Dharam Veer. This is very close to the source, which says Immediately after the Pak Pre-emptive attacks on 3 Dec, Chandpuri dispatched a 20-man strong patrol under Lieutenant Dharam Veer. Close paraphrasing should be avoided, as it's not significantly different than just copying and pasting the text from the source.
- This source doesn't say anything about Boundary Pillar 638.
- This source lists several reasons the assault was halted beside moonlight and enemy fire, like fears of a minefield and the light of the tanks. They should probably be added, because right now it looks like this source is also talking about the moonlight and mortar fire (even though it isn't).
- This source doesn't say anything about Matra T-10 rockets, 30 mm cannons, or 12.7 mm anti-aircraft guns. It looks like it only supports "turkey shoot" even though it's the citation for all of that text.
Ludra (2001)
- Indian battle plans called for a strike by the 12th Indian Division across the border towards Islamgarh through Sarkari Tala, subsequently advancing through Baghla to secure Rahim Yar Khan. is very similar to The Indian plan in this region envisaged a strike across the international border towards Islamgarh, through Sarkari Tala. After securing Islamgarh the plan was to advance through Baghla and secure Rahim Yar Khan.
- Why do both the article and the source use the word "envisaged"? Is the article stealing words from the source?
Sharma (1990)
- This source doesn't say anything about a Jonga-mounted 106 mm M40 recoilless rifle.
- This source does not mention the fears of a minefield and the light of the tanks. Why is this source attached to its paragraph?
- It doesn't say anything about 36 destroyed tanks.

Broad in its coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated

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.