Template:Did you know nominations/2013 India-Pakistan border incident

2013 India–Pakistan border incidents

 * ... that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that "there can't be business as usual with Pakistan" after the 2013 India–Pakistan border incidents?
 * Reviewed: South African cricket team in India in 1996–97

Created by Darkness Shines (talk), Strike Eagle (talk), Vibhijain (talk). Nominated by Vibhijain (talk) at 16:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that the Indian Army released photos of landmines planted by Pakistan in Indian territory after the 2013 India–Pakistan border incidents? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that Lashkar-e-Toiba founder Hafiz Saeed has visited the Indo-Pakistani border a few days before the Indian soldiers were killed? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Positive: QPQ fine, hook good (I would go with the first one), article meets criteria for expansion, prose is generally pretty strong considering the controversial nature of the article. On the other hand: Inconsistent citation style. Inconsistent use of "incident" or "incidents": is the article about the Pakistain->India attack, with the alleged India->Pakistan attack as just background, or are they both incidents? The lead disagrees with the prose and title. Main body of the article contains no reference to the agreement to de-escalate the situation AFAICT. I haven't checked sources, but I will once you've been able to address these other concerns (feel free to leave me a talkback). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 9, 10 & 11 covers the agreement to de-escalate. The article is about quite a few incidents, one lead to another. How does the lede disagree with the prose & title? I ca nformat the few refs which appear to be bare URL's if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re de-escalation, I'm just noting that the body of the article does not mention the de-escalation comments which are mentioned in the lead.
 * Re incident/s, well the title of the article is "incident" and you have a section entitled "Incident", yet the lead begins "The 2013 India–Pakistan border incidents were..."?
 * Yes, you ought to reformat the bare URLs as cite webs, since that's what the majority of the refs are. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I think I got everything you have mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but now you need to expand the "Incident [sic]" section to include details of the India->Pakistan attack. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 01:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the current status of this nomination? Is there more material to be added, or is it almost ready for a new review? (Since FN3 is a bare URL, it isn't ready at the moment.) Since the article has been renamed from "incident" to "incidents" (and the hyphen changed to an en dash), some reformatting of the proposed hooks is also in order; I have updated the title, DYKnompage and DYKmake templates as appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All done now I hope, someone had added a new ref, hence the still bare one you found. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg IMO Jarry1250's criticisms still stand; the article refers to multiple incidents in some places but only a single incident in others, while also failing to explain which single incident is being referred to. Gatoclass (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Not seeing any progress — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)