Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'll start this review. I've made some minor tweaks to the "background section" please have a look at and see if they are ok! auntieruth (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: this has been onhold since late June. I've asked the nominator to review some suggested changes and haven't heard back.  auntieruth (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I've tweaked and streamlined a couple of sections. Please review.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I'm going to ask for a second opinion on reliability of sources....I've looked at them, but am not completely familiar with the literature. One in particular comes from a  blog, another is self published (sometimes an issue), and a third has a dead link.
 * I agree with your concerns RE some of the sourcing. I had an exchange with the nominator in relation to another article they had nominated for GA. It clearly needed a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. It transpired that they hadn't been involved in preparing it for GA and was unlikely to be able to do the work required and the article was quick-failed. I think the same should happen here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have pinged you when I made the comment above (and the one below). Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * I need another opinion on this.
 * It is my understanding that topics relating to conflicts between India and Pakistan are contentious areas to edit in so particular care needs to be taken to ensure NPOV. I think you are right to be wary of some sources as per my comment above. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: