Talk:Battle of Chunj

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Chunj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rahim231 (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rahim231, I will be reviewing this article. I will post my comments soon, please reply to let me know I can start doing so. Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Sounds good. Rahim231 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this but just reminding the reviewer about this page in case they forgot (considering it has already been 10 days). Setergh (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Setergh, my apologies, I got caught up with other wiki work. @Rahim231, my comments:

• Is the QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer the same as the 3.7-inch howitzer deployed by Pakistani forces? If so, consider linking?
• Add alt text for the Chunj features image?
• I cannot access the following source: "Historical Section, GS Branch GHQ, The Kashmir Campaign 1947-48 (Rawalpindi: Historical Section, 1970), 159". I believe it is a classified document, or at the very least not accessible outside Pakistan. If you can provide a URL then this source can be accepted. Otherwise it will have to be removed because it cannot be cross-checked.
• Add the page number for ref #17, the article by JS Bajwa?
• If Sen 1994 and Riza 1997 have more details you could add to the article, I would recommend that you move them to the bibliography. Generally, a Further reading section is recommended only when there are already a lot of citations in the article, say more than 150-200.

I've made some copyedits, please let me know if those are alright. The article is otherwise in a good shape, and I think it can be promoted once these changes are done. Matarisvan (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, this obviously isn't my GA review, but I just quickly wanted to mention that I do think the QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer is the same as the 3.7-inch howitzer after reading the source, and either way I'm rather certain that this is the only 3.7 inch mountain gun to exist. Setergh (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, It seems to me that as well. Rahim231 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

For the third point, would https://www.aimh.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/remembering-kashmir.pdf work fine? Unsure if this is the exact same thing but it brings up the same points. Setergh (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah i was gonna do that since the previous book cited is a classified document unavailable to the public other then government officials and it is the official history of the 1947 War from Pakistan side.

This one is verifiable. Thanks for pointing out! Rahim231 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

1- Its already linked in the Battle section

2- Added Alt text

3- I have replaced it.

4- Removed citation (Since it didn't contain info related it)

5- a) Sen 1944 does not mention the details of this event or the just calling it a Toothless offensive and Riza 1997 makes mention of the event and the already included information. other than that he mentions positions assumed by troops in other sectors

b) Removed "see Further reading" section Rahim231 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this article is worthy of GA-class personally, although obviously the reviewer decides.

Just wanted to mention though, does the lead really need citations in this case? I'm pretty sure it's just info taken from the article, therefore I see no point. MOS:Lead states that "A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."

Personally, considering the information in the lead is quite literally just taken from the rest of the article, the citations serve no purpose. Setergh (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

For the lead i didn't add citations before but was told to do so by the Reviewer at WP:MHAR so i added them. Rahim231 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see why you were told to do this, the lead should preferably go without them. But up to you honestly, doesn't change much lol Setergh (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

And congrats on the GA page (well I'm sure it will get it now that you've fixed everything)! Well deserved. Hopefully I'll manage to get one someday as well 🤷 Setergh (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot brother. When i first started this i thought i would never be able to even get one GA like the succeeding battle of this one Battle of Pandu (its needs a lot of editing), u sure will get it if you keep up the good work ! Rahim231 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rahim231, two final comments:

• Add the photographs of Ghulam Rasul and AM Sloan in the Military honors section?
• Is there any new information in this link you could use? It is a good source, and you should have access to it through The Wikipedia Library. If not, please let me know and I will send the PDF to you.

Matarisvan (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

1- Photos were added

2- Not sure i tried to access it previously but couldn't do so. Its published by the same person who's source (https://web.archive.org/web/20240820052152/https://www.hilal.gov.pk/view-article.php?i=2095) was cited in the article might contain additional info. Please provide the Pdf since I don't know about the wiki library and how it works.Rahim231 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I learned about the Wiki library and got access the pdf, it sure has a lot of additional information as you said. I'm not sure how should i now incorporate it in the article now ? Rahim231 (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather confused, how are you not sure how to incorporate it into the article? You obviously aren't forced to add all details, but I'd recommend adding the details where you are certain where they'd fit into the article. Setergh (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually it contains in depth assessment and details of the whole operation/battle which are not found in any other source. Even the Casualty figures were given in this pdf unlike others. I will try my best to include information necessary for the article. Rahim231 (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, good luck! Setergh (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Matarisvan I have included information from the recommended source. Rahim231 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rahim231, some recommendations:

• Try to not use the exact text from the sources. You should use synonyms and similar meaning text, otherwise there can be copyright violations.
• Always order the bibliography in alphabetical order.
• Learn to improve your grammar and copywriting. What may pass as perfectly readable in the subcontinent will read as utter gibberish to other readers.
• There is much more information in the ProQuest source I recommended. Incorporate it and let me know on my talk page, I can do the copy editing again. I think you could go to FA after the copy editing is done.

Overall, the article is in good shape now, so I will be promoting it to GA. Congratulations on your first GA, and please try to implement these recommendations. Matarisvan (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Major Alan macfarlane sloan]]

Major Alan macfarlane sloan

• ... that Major Alan Macfarlane Sloan remains, as of December 2024, the only British soldier to die in action for Pakistan?

• Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240718082819/https://www.aimh.gov.pk/winter-2022/

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Rahim231 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Rahim231 (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC).

• Not a review, but that image will divert readers to Sloan's article and should not run.--Launchballer 18:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, instead of the Picture I removed the link to his article.

• Hi @Rahim231: this article, promoted to GA on 1 Feb, is new enough, long enough, and presentable. QPQ not needed. The hook is cited to the Army Institute of Military History (which seems reliable to me) and the citation checks out. However, the "Notes" section needs inline citations. I'd also like to workshop the hook a little once that's fixed. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Done, Added citations to the notes. Rahim231 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    • @Rahim231: Thanks a lot! I want to modify the wording of your work a little, because it suggests to me that it would link to an article about the Major's death (and not the battle). I'd suggest:

ALT1a: ... that, as of December 2024, the Battle of Chunj is the only battle in which a British soldier died in action for Pakistan?

I'm also unsure that we need to say "as of December 2024", as it's recent enough that it's fairly uncontentious that the fact hasn't changed (it's clear that Pakistan hasn't fought any wars involving Britain since Dec 2024). In which case would you object to modifying the wording in the article and in the hook, along the lins of:

ALT1b: ... that the Battle of Chunj is the only battle in which a British soldier died in action for Pakistan?

Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you since the fact hasn't changed and ALT1b would do the job. Thanks Rahim231 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, GTG with ALT1b. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Rahim231 Can you add a citation to the fourth note? SL93 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Added citation ✔. Rahim231 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)