Talk:Operation Trident (1971)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow over the next few days. Zawed (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done a light copyedit to fix some minor issues, please carefully review my changes to make sure I haven't unintentionally introduced errors. Some (relating to presentation and style) could be implemented onto the other articles you already have nominated for GA.

Some initial comments:

Infobox Background Prelude Attack Images References Looking pretty good otherwise. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a list of commanders, but most are not even named in the article until the awards. I would remove all but Yadav.
 * Nanda was the navy chief then and Hiranandani was the Fleet Operations Officer, so I prefer keeping them.
 * Casualties need condensing, e.g. three ships sunk, one damaged, later scrapped etc...also mention the number of fatalities among the PN personnel
 * Done
 * "...operating in the close waters..." I'm not sure what you mean here; close as in close to shore, or close as in nearby (if the latter suggest "same waters".
 * Done
 * It would be good to have some context for the proximity of Okha to Karachi here, where it is first mentioned, rather than in the next section.
 * Please explain
 * Move this phrase ", near Karachi" to first mention of Okha rather than the second. Zawed (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The very last sentence could be revised, for example, what is the Western Sector, is it near the border between India/Pakistan. If so, then probably to state that rather than referring to Western Sector, which may not mean much to the reader. Also specifically name the war, i.e Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. It is named in the lead.
 * Done
 * "Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command," who is this person?
 * Unfortunately this is not available.
 * That is unfortunate. Perhaps rephrase to not mention the flag officer. Zawed (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The strike force was formed the same day as the attack commenced? I assume that the strike group would have needed time to assemble in the same area?
 * The source mentions the same way, perhaps, as all the ships were under Western Naval Command, the group was immediately formed.
 * Inconsistent presentation here: task group vs strike group used earlier.
 * Fixed
 * "(former HMS Cadiz)", also "(former HMS Charity)": I wouldn't include this information here as it is not relevant to the article.
 * Removed
 * "causing heavy loss to the Pakistan Navy.": not sure what you mean by this phrase, I assume you mean the loss of the oil. I would suggest rephrasing to refer to causing a shortage of fuel for the Pakistan Navy.
 * Done
 * "PNHQ": this abbreviation has not been used before in the article, it needs some context (presumably it refers to the headquarters of the Pakistan Navy, which is mentioned in the background section.
 * It is mentioned in the second para of the section
 * Put the abbreviation in brackets on the first usage of the unabbreviated term. Zawed (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No images. I would suggest adding a map (if available) of the area of operations for context. No images of any of the ships involved available?
 * I will try to do this.
 * The Scoop Whoop website doesn't strike me as a reliable source. Could the content supported by this reference be cited to another source?
 * I think it is a RS because the website is maintained by an editorial team.
 * Thanks for the review, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you may have missed it as I didn't ping you at the time, but I have replied to a couple of your comments above. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found and added an image to the article, would be good to supplement it with an image of one of the Indian vessels involved. Regardless, the article looks good and I believe it meets the all the GA criteria now: it broadly covers the subject, is well written in a neutral tone and appropriately cited. Passing as a GA now. Great work! Zawed (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)