Wikipedia:Peer review/Hunza–Nagar Campaign/archive1

Hunza–Nagar Campaign


I've listed this article for peer review because,I have just finished significantly expanding this stub article and I hope it to obtain C-Class. What parts of the structure need more attention and for Referencing i have cited more sources same with coverage. This is my first major contribution and I would appreciate any kind of help

Thanks, Rahim231 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * B-class review

Hello, Rahim231! Because you commented that you "hope [the article] to obtain C-class" on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, I have done a B-class review of this article.
 * 1) It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
 * A few paragraphs are missing in-line citations. Entire paragraphs are attributed to a number of sources, rather than sentences describing the same idea(s). In other words, the citation style is not thorough. The sources cited, however, are of good quality.
 * 1) It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
 * There is little coverage of the eponymous Hunza–Nagar side. The article at present is heavily skewed towards the British perspective, including minute personal details between British troops, but only speaking of the Hunza and Nagar troops when they retreat or surrender.
 * 1) It has a defined structure:
 * The section titles and layout are logical. A "Legacy" section speaking to the campaign's long-lasting consequences and remembrance should be included if possible, as history articles tend to include them to indicate historical significance.
 * 1) It is reasonably well-written:
 * The article is written in an unencyclopedic tone and littered with grammatical mistakes and discouraged words (e.g. referring to soldiers as "guys").
 * 1) It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
 * The article contains an appropriate infobox and a few appropriately-placed images.
 * 1) It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
 * There is insufficient context for the reader to ascertain the background and major actors of the campaign. Uncommon or foreign words like Mir are presented without explanation. It is evident that the reader's holding of the background knowledge of the topic is assumed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A major issue with this article is that most of its content appears to be closely paraphrased from the sources cited (see Copyvio for caught examples). It is not written in an encyclopedic tone; rather, it evidently employs the narrative techniques of the sources given, which are akin to the storytelling tone common in non-academic literature (such as non-academic books, blogs, video essays, etc.). To obtain a C-class ranking on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, the issues in criterias 3 to 6 would needed to be remedied, including one of criteria 1 or 2. Best of luck on improving this article. Yue 🌙 04:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Reviewing the article as i could not know better what to improve here, Myself. Rahim231 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)