Talk:Operation Gibraltar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Gibraltar article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Operation Gibraltar was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 25, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed July 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	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... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 GA Review 2 GA Pass 3 The "Other" Operation Gibraltar 4 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold 4.1 GA Sweeps Review:Pass 5 Good article reassessment

[edit] GA Review

I reviewed the article based on the Good Article criteria here, and have placed the review process on hold pending a few issues being addressed. Basically the article needs a thorough copyedit, but I have commented in detail below on each of the main GA criteria.

Prose FAIL

This is basically okay but needs work in places. The article would benefit from a thorough proof-read; some of the sentences are not clear or grammatically correct. I won't list them all for brevity, but a few examples are:

• "...something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest." - earliest opportunity?
• "Pakistan sought to utilise before India completed its defense upgradation." - the article is British English, so defense --> defence; upgradation --> upgrade
• "These troops named 'Gibralter Force'" - spelling of Gibraltar
• "...Pakistan wouldn't be able to defeat India in the ensuing war." - wouldn't --> would not (avoid contractions unless in a direct quotation)

The lead section seems to be a fair summary of the article, and the article is well-wikilinked and follows the Manual of Style in its layout. Again relating to a proofread, there are one or two references inside the punctuation; these should be edited for consistency.

Factual accuracy FAIL

I'm not familiar with the reliability of the sources used, but they seem okay. More citations would be nice, and there are a few sentences that could definitely do with being explicitly cited, for example:

• "The operation's name, Gibraltar, itself was chosen for the Islamic connotations."
• "...though Pakistan denied any involvement, it was soon proved that the foreigners were all of Pakistani origin."
• "All these was done in order to force India from Kashmir as it was reasoned that India would not involve itself in another costly war, thus liberating Kashmir." (also grammar in this sentence)

Broadness of coverage PASS

The subject is covered thoroughly, with an appropriate depth of content, and stays focused throughout.

NPOV PASS

Although the majority of the sources used are Pakistani, the article is unbiased and sufficiently NPOV.

Stability PASS

No evidence of edit warring from the article history.

Images PASS

All images used are appropriately captioned and have suitable copyright status.

The GA process can be held off for seven days, which will hopefully give you time to sort out the points raised above. If I don't hear before then, I'll check back here on 11th July. Any questions etc or to request a second look, drop me a note on my talk page. Regards EyeSerene^TALK 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and highlighting the deficiencies. I'll work on those citations and prose and get back to you. Idleguy 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

Congratulations, I have passed this article under the WP:GAC. Thank you for your hard work in improving this article based on the above comments, and well done! EyeSerene^TALK 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Other" Operation Gibraltar

There was an American Army operation also called Gibraltar, ironically also in 1965, in Vietnam, around An Khe I think, involving the 2/502nd and 2/327th of the 101st Airborne Division. Needs a separate page if any one has any more information on it... It is significant in the fact that despite claims that the battle at LZ X-Ray and Albany in the Ia Drang Valley (of "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young" fame), Operation Gibraltar was actually the first major US combat operation in Vietnam, several months prior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk • contribs)

I have also come across this other Op. Gibraltar in my research for this article. I will create a new page perhaps. --Idleguy 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Operation Gibraltar(Vietnam War) is an empty page where the details can be added on the Vietnam War's operation. Idleguy 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.

1. The infobox needs information added for India's strength and number of casualties. If they are unknown, then just put that.
2. "These factors bolstered the Pakistani command's thinking: that the use of covert methods followed by the threat of an all out war would force a resolution in Kashmir." Needs an inline citation.
3. "According to Indian sources as many as 30,000[8] - 40,000 men had crossed the line, while Pakistani sources put it at 5,000 -7,000 only." Needs sources for 5,000-7,000 figure.
4. "Fighting continued until the end of the month, as vital pockets like Haji Pir pass - which was the logistical supply route of the infiltrators - and other nearby areas were also brought under Indian control." Needs inline citation for logistical supply route part.

If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. I don't see that being a problem since these should be easy to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, --Nehrams2020 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added multiple inline citations for the requested lines and improved by adding a litle more depth to statements with sources. I'm sure it's okay now. Thanks. Idleguy 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review:Pass

Good job on addressing the issues so quickly. Make sure that all new information is properly sourced and the article maintains its high quality. At this time, the article meets the requirements of the GA criteria and will remain a GA. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 09:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)