Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Pandu/archive1

Battle of Pandu


Hello there, With the aim to identify any more areas that this article needs or may be improved upon before It is nominated for a good article nomination, especially when this is my first time, I have put it up for peer review...

Thanks, Rahim231 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * H Amin, Agha (2022)—not likely to be a reliable source
 * Javaid, Hassan, ed. (2023).—nothing loads, citation should make it clear this is an army website
 * Lead needs expansion (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe Hi there,
 * 1-Agha H amin is a retired Pakistani Major who has written many Scholarly articles and contributed alot in writing the official Pakistani Military history, His books have been used in other wikipedia articles as well therefore i think it would be a reliable source ?
 * About the author:- (https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B008Y9XE8E/about) (https://mellenpress.com/author/agha-amin/7165/)
 * 2-The pdf does load for me though (https://www.aimh.gov.pk/kashmir-martyrs-day/). clarified it is an army website
 * 3- Did some expansion is this good enough? Rahim231 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Airship

 * I echo the concerns about H Amin, Agha (2022)—the author appears to be an army official with extensive experience, but that does not make him a reliable source on mid-20th century military history. As the source is independently published, H Amin has to satisfy the criteria at WP:RSSELF—if he is to be retained in the article, you must provide evidence that his work on mid-20th century South Asian history has "previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
 * I see the possibility of close paraphrasing in the article, which would make the article eligible for a quickfail at WP:GAN. See the following comparison with Javaid 2023:
 * Article:
 * Source:
 * This is in fact very problematic in the "Battle" section, much of which is closely paraphrased from Khan 1975. I will tag the article accordingly.


 * The tone needs work. For example, the first paragraph of "Geography" reads more like a tourism brochure than an encyclopedic article—the first three sentences are basically unecessary, while the general prose attempts to convey the "breathtaking vista" but fails to convey much relevant to the article.
 * In conclusion, the article needs significant work to fix basic issues, and should not be considered ready for a GA nomination. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)