Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Operation Chengiz Khan was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 28, 2007
Flag
Bangladesh Portal
Operation Chengiz Khan is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh.
Collaborations: Sundarbans & Cox's Bazar


[edit] Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I've put this on hold for up to two weeks because:


  • Grammar is good in most places, but needs cleaned up. For example, "However, of its stated objectives, the PAF was unable to neutralise the Indian Air Force in the west. It most certainly achieved surprise."
    • I am working on this. Will help if you tell me where it can be improved.
  • Also check on punctuation. You have some spaces before references (10, for example) and other areas where you are missing spaces where you should have them. (15) You sometimes have references before punctuation, which should be cleaned up. (19)
    • Working on this.
  • Use of bold text in some places seem out of place, both within the text and within the references. (Did you intend to use italics?)
    • Addressed.
  • Many of sections are stubby and look more like lists. Consider following the advice of Wikipedia:Embedded_list to make them flow better.
    • Sorted, I believe
  • The last paragraph of "Analysis" may not be a neutral point of view. You have it well-cited, but it seems biased. Maybe state sources which were surprised.
    • You will notice that this section only uses sources and references dervied from Pakistani sources, the "TIMES magazine" article written in December 1971 that analysed the conflict (and had accounts of this particular air raid), and the Air Combat Information Group (a neutral an multinational group on air warfare) article that is reference no.1. No Indian sources suggesting ineffectiveness has been included, deliberately, to avoid bias and POV. I hope this clarifies the NPOV issue.
  • Consider using the standard citation templates for more consistent citations.
    • Addressed below (References ordered to consistent order of "Title. Author if known. Source."
  • I'm not sure your maps are fair use. They would be easy for you to reproduce based on the factual data and the non-copyrighted CIA maps, rather than using someone else's copyrighted maps.
    • Addressed below and in the image pages.

I may not be able to respond to comments quickly next week, but I'll be back after that to look on your improvements. JRP 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats the status here, on hold expires today. IvoShandor 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll look over in more detail tomorrow (when I am home), but it looks like there is substantial improvement here... but I'm not sure all the points were addressed. (The obvious one is the questionable fair-use on the maps, but I need to re-review more closely. I didn't do the strikeouts.) JRP 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: The images, they are the only ones I have found so far that identitifes the IAF and the PAF bases involved. The locations and geographical co-ordinates of some of the airfields (especially PAF ones) ones are usually not declared and/or publicised. CIA maps and data available on the net don't usually identify sensitive locations, including defence installations. Some of these lie outside of notable cities and/or towns(eg, PAF Masroor, PAF Murid,PAF Talhar, IAF Uttarlai, IAF Halwara). I don't think I can create an alternative map for these, so I guess if that's the sticking point, then there's not really much I can do.Rueben lys 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. We may be at an impasse. I see them as being against Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use #3, though I'll list at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images for someone with better knowledge of faire use to make that call. JRP 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that. I made some queries at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for information on the Indian Information Act which you cite. I just want this to be clear before deciding whether to promote. JRP 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Pass/Fail? Ehh? IvoShandor 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In my GA review comments, I gave two weeks to resolve the issues (instead of the normal one week). That ends Apr 26. I believe we are still at the "sticking point" over the maps. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content seems to be that the maps fail fair use. (And I hope Rueben lys will participate in that discussion.) Regardless of other improvements to the article, that would preclude GA until the images were removed or their fair use status was clarified.JRP 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the best way to deal with this for GA is to just remove the map from the article until its status is decided and just pass the GA. IvoShandor 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking over the article, there are still a number of minor (and solvable) problems. The use of unnecessary bold text hasn't been corrected (and some of the bolds should be italics, in names of books, etc.). There's a stray dash after "objectives of the strike", there's a stray space between footnote 10 and 3, weird commas around 12 and 13, and many of the citations aren't immediately after punctuation - some have spaces and some are before punctuation. It would also be nice to have the uniformity in the citation templates. If I were to review the article now, with these problems unfixed, I would be failing the GA nomination. JRP 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the minor problems you mentioned have been sorted. I have made the references consistent in the format of "Title. Author.Source." I am not familiar with the citation template, and will take quite a while to replace all the references. I hope the consistency(uniformity) overrides any negative aspects.

As for the images,first of all they are not subject to subscription, and is not a cause of revenue-loss. Also, it is integrally linked to understand why the PAF struck the bases it did and not other ones (ie, the target airfields were in direct path of the proposed offensive, or were geographically and strategically in a place to provide ground support, while the airfields ignored were not) so the maps are quite important.This is also consistent with the aim with the original image was created. Lastly there is no uncopyrighted alternative, and it is not possible to create a free alternative since the source data are not known. The images reproduction is essentially to dissipate information that is essential to understand the operation itself. I do think it satisfies fair use.Rueben lys 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've reached an impasse. Regarding the titles in bold face, you should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). (Which is largely done for you if you use the citation templates, but you can also do it by hand.) Some of the references are still inconsistently placed, relative to punctuation; see the guidelines in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I don't think we will agree on whether the maps are fair use or not. I'm leaning toward following the input I received when asking on the Talk pages (listed above) and saying they are non-fair-use. (Particularly the opinion of Jkelly who is a commons administrator. I trust that he understands the ins and outs of fair use better than I do.) Based on these three concerns, this is still not a GA-quality article. It's quite close, in my opinion and you may find another reviewer that may let it slide. So, if you disagree with me I can fail the article a day or two early and you can start working on relisting it. It is good and on an important topic. JRP 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I am going to relist this anymore, you can fail it if it fails right now.Thanks for the help, though. Rueben lys 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)