Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kargil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kargil War

The article covers the 2 month long conflict from every angle possible and any issues of POV have been addressed by providing reliable and neutral sources. The factual accuracy of the war is near perfect IMO. The images are all properly tagged and it does make a good read too and making this a FA would be a step in the right direction as it could enthuse more editors to improve coverage of Asian wars. I have worked extensively having taken a peer review before and incorporating all the suggestions. Any objections can be addressed to make this even better. Please vote. Thanx Idleguy 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Object Support: Good work on improving the article. I can see that a lot of progress has been made and it's looking a lot better. Kafziel 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The grammar and vocabulary needs some work. A couple of quick examples that really jumped out at me:

  • "The cause of the war was infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants..." There should be a "the" between "was" and "infiltration"
  • A caption (on the Star TV screen shot) calls a missile launcher "indigenous". That pretty much only applies to living things, so unless Pinaka missiles grow on trees in India...

There are probably more, but I don't have time to go through it with a fine-toothed comb right now. Those two just caught my eye right off the bat. I do think the article itself looks pretty comprehensive, and the subject is interesting. If the language is improved I would have no problem supporting it. Kafziel 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel it could use an editor with proofreading skills to give it the tweaks and gloss it needs in the grammar and vocabulary department. If anyone can do that it'll be even better. Hoping someone does that. :) Idleguy 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am posting an "Object" vote until the article is fully copyedited. I will post more.
The article needs improvement in several areas. I will give a few examples of each.
  • Grammar and tone
  • "media coverage was pretty much lopsided" - unencyclopedic
  • "India conducted its first test since 1974" should say "in", not "since"
  • "vantage heights" should be "vantage points"
  • POV
  • "Few nations believed the Pakistani attempt at plausible deniability by linking the incursion to Kashmiri "freedom fighters"." No cite for this, so the quotation marks on "freedom fighters" are not quoting a source but rather are being used to cast doubt on their designation. Since the claim is made that "few nations believed" it, a cite is needed.
  • "But by the second week of May, the intrusions had been detected after an Indian patrol team acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector was ambushed." This sentence implies that Indian forces "detected" the Pakistani incursion, when in fact the Pakistani forces abushed them. The Pakistanis weren't detected; they deliberately made their presence known.
  • "This was the first ground war between two declared nuclear powers." No offense, but India and Pakistan are not "nuclear powers". They are just countries that possess some nuclear weapons. The same idea is expressed more accurately (but redundantly) in the section "WMDs and the nuclear factor".
  • Internal links
  • References
  • Footnote 19 - the quote in the text is very badly twisted from the actual quote in the referenced document. This is clearly POV and not at all faithful to the original source.
  • "It might also have resulted in the coup d'etat by Pervez Musharraf in October 1999." Might have? Did it or did it not? Are there references for this?
There are many other examples. I would strongly recommend any other voters to set aside personal loyalties and actually proofread the article before voting "Strong Support" and the like. There is a lot of work to be done here. Kafziel 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the ascent link, which now points to ascent (climbing), an article that does not exist so far. -- Robert Weemeyer 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please do not attempt to insinuate that people who feel strongly that this is a good article have ulterior motives or influences. You have your reasons for your vote which I respect, and others have theirs which you should respect. Rama's Arrow 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to respect the fact that nobody else has actually proofread the article. How is that nobody noticed the links that don't work? Or the spelling and grammatical errors? I think it's important to note that featured article candidacy is not a vote, per se. This is a list of errors that need to be corrected, and it can't be a featured article until they are addressed no matter how many people vote otherwise. Your vote demonstrates your prejudice; a hasty "strong support" vote followed up by actionable objections? That doesn't make any sense. My statement was not intended as an insult, but as a suggestion that those of you who support it (either blindly or with at best a passing glance) should instead lend a hand to fix it. Kafziel 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Kafziel, you are in no position to make judgments on other people's examination of this article and their respective votes. I know that user:Idleguy and others will not hesitate to rid the article of any problems, and I don't vote "no" over small errors, becoz this article is a good work on the whole. And frankly it doesn't matter beocz your comments do not affect my "strong support," and will shortly be in no position to affect anybody elses. I do not want to continue this debate on this FA vote page, however. Rama's Arrow 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Many of your points have now been addressed Rama's Arrow 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: An excellent effort by Idleguy. Rama's Arrow 05:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really don't think you should retain the "See also" section. It is redundant, and the links should be incorporated into the main article. It just doesn't look good. Rama's Arrow 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article. Siva1979Talk to me 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A well-balanced article --Deepak|वार्ता 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:It should be moved to Kargil war or Kargil conflict. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Then all the wars on Wikipedia would have to be moved. eg. Korean War. The "W" in the war is almost always capitalised when mentioning it with the proper noun. That has been the norm here and elsewhere. Also a note has been provided why its increasingly being referred to as Kargil War and not otherwise. Thanx Idleguy 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I didn't know this exception to the general rule. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the text the article goes back and forth between "Kargil War" and "Kargil war". The title says it is "Kargil War" but the bolded introduction term says "Kargil war". Which is correct? --maclean25 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not bad at all, but I have the impression this needs more work by more people, and—as the nominator himself admitted above—a thorough copyedit. In some places, I feel that the general flow could be improved and the text streamlined. Some example points I discovered on a cursory read:
    1. Unnecessary and confusing use of abbreviations: LoC instead of "Line of Control", WMD for "Weapons of mass destruction", and what is NLI? LOC could be used sparingly if introduced first.
    2. "The observation posts allowed Pakistani spotters to control the indirect fire of the artillery at the Indian troops and vehicles." - Huh? That comes a bit out of context. What observation posts? Anyway, is that important? It is already stated that they were able to shell the road. I'd just drop it.
    3. "The infiltrators were well equipped with assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, artillery and anti-aircraft guns, thus putting the Indian troops right in the line of fire." - Eh, what? Of course one would assume that in an armed conflict, troops would get under fire. Drop.
    4. Inconsequential linking. Why is "line of sight" linked? Why "taped" or "phone"? Why "versimilitude"?
    5. Language or word choice issues. Why is the Bofors infamous?
    6. Language issues. "Based on military tactics, much of the costly frontal assaults by the Indians could have been avoided"... first, just drop the "Based on military tactics". Second, whose opinion is that? Reference.
    7. Image:KargilPak.png has no source, and is claimed fair use, but the article doesn't discuss the coverage of the event in Time at all. IMO, not a correct fair use.
    8. Sloppy quoting. "Nuclear weapons can be used for national security" is not what the Pakistani Senate leader said according to the source given, that's just the headline of The News on July 1, 1999. According to the source given reference 19 in the article, the senate leader said "The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed.".
In summary: I think this is not quite ready. Lupo 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Time magazine cover, it is indeed fair use. That story is covered under external links and is one of the few comprehensive reports from the western media on the war. Additionally that is the only reasonably fair use image that was available on Pakistani troops. In the absence of an official photo, such fair use images are ok. A similar issue had been raised with an administrator Slimvirgin and it was decided to keep such images for the lack of an alternative.
As for the quote of the senator, the quote itself is correct, if you'd notice carefully, the headline itself is a quote of his statement. "N-weapons can be used for national security" is the precise quote. The second one is another statement made in the Senate. Both were exact reproductions. one was used in the headline with the quotes another in the article with quotes. So no sloppiness or selective quoting etc.
I raised this issue as well. The quote in the article is deliberately shortened to change the meaning and make it seem as if Pakistan was all set to nuke India. The actual quote is just a simple statement of fact (that the purpose of having them is to be able to use them), a sentiment shared by India, whether they stated as much or not. The quote should be removed, in my opinion (because it's meaningless and doesn't actually imply anything at all), or at least shown in its entirety. Kafziel 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I went in and inserted the correct quote. Kafziel 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The details have been added since this is an encyclopedia and meant for general readers who might not be into military tactics or the operational importance of a battlefield etc. Thus I feel it necessary to retain such lines for a clearer understanding and a link to wiretapping doesn't hurt anyone. Atleast I didn't know an article could exist with versimilitude or wiretapping (which is an interesting read) for a casual reader. Stating the obvious is a style guide encouraged in Wikipedia given that lay readers might not even know many of the terms. Ok, maybe the phone wikilink was a bit too much, i'll remove that.
Verisimilitude (most people don't even spell it correctly on the first try, yourself included) is a needlessly esoteric word evidently added to make the article seem more scholarly. It could easily be replaced with a simpler synonym (realism, for instance) that wouldn't need to be wikilinked for clarity. Changing the word would avoid all confusion and needless linking. Kafziel 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I went in to fix it myself, but realized the problem is even bigger than simply vocabulary. First of all, it's redundant, because realistic treatment doesn't lend verisimilitude to a project; realistic treatment IS verisimilitude. Secondly, whose opinion is it that the movie is realistic? That needs to be sourced or removed. Kafziel 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have copyedited it. As for sources, it is internally sourced to the Lakshya article, which inturn links to the IMDB page. A rating of 7.3 is a pretty good one for an Indian war movie. Additionally I've provided a direct link to rotten tomatoes (a critics only site). But the site doesn't have enough reviews for the tomatometer rating. It has also been received well in Pakistan - not often does it happen in a war movie by India since it involves "Pak-bashing". I'm not adding the individual pakistani sites to keep the ext links to a minimum. Idleguy 06:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the question regarding the "costly frontal assaults" it is taken from the sources. I believe it was RAND Corp, given in the references section.
Of course some suggestions I'll work on like the abbreviations; as you'd have noted many of the concerns raised earlier have been addressed by me other editors. Idleguy 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, very good effort! --Neigel von Teighen 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Balanced and well written article. However, unnecessary wiki links to the likes of winter, summer, daylight, etc. should probably be removed. AreJay 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article does not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) guidelines. Featured articles are expected to follow as many guidelines and policies as possible. See Usage of links for date preferences. --maclean25 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
DONE :) And added a few Km to Mile conversion too. Tx Idleguy 05:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs to be copyedited somewhat, especially inconsistent use of "Kargil war" v. "Kargil War" (latter should be used). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It is War with a capital "W", until someone made those changes. I missed that edit, now rectified. Thanx for bringing it up. Idleguy 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I was planning to delete Image:KargilNews.jpg and was just hesitating; now it stands deleted. As for Image:Kargil Bofors.jpg, it is given a full paragraph where the Bofors and its use has been discussed in detail. If any weapon deserved an image, it surely has to be the Bofors, and the article does talk about it. Please read the article before making decisions. As for the remaining two images, they are fair use as the reaons have been given earlier here. Please comment only on issues that have not been raised already. Idleguy 05:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Then stick it down in the part of the article discussing it, and stick some free image (say, a map of the area) in the infobox. --Carnildo 06:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - appears comprehensive, adheres to NPOV and is well referenced. However some minor concerns are mentioned below.
    1. Indian media as force multiplier - A very strong claim that needs a reference.
    2. Please avoid unnecessary wikification - this comment applies to the session on aftermath of the war where words such as irregularities, strategic and tactical are linked - doesn't make sense as they are dicdefs at best. It may be worthwhile to link "irregularities" to an article on the coffin scam or the Tehelka issue.
    3. I believe the correct spelling is "Dras" and not "Drass" as mentioned at a couple of places in the article.
    4. It may be worthwhile to link NH1 and NH1A and create stubs for them.
    5. I believe the "location of conflict" should be the image on main page and probably in the infobox.
Not withstanding the above comments, I strongly commend the editors of the article and vote support for this well-written article on an otherwise controversial topic. --Gurubrahma 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, I've added an additonal note for comment no.1 - it is originally mentioned in the committee report and a RAND publication - being the primary sources of the article.
  • Minor Object - The MoS for references needs a check. Sometimes there are spaces after the full stop/period and/or comma, then the reference, like: "on the larger issue of Kashmir. [29]" Shouldn't it be on the larger issue of Kashmir.[29]?
    • Also, link #30 under the "Kargil War in the arts" section really should be put with the inline citation. It looks very weird to have everything in an inline citation, but #30 just uses the square bracket form. KILO-LIMA 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed these two ones also to maintain uniformity. Idleguy 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful article. Congratulations to the editors who have strived hard to produce a balanced write-up on such a controversial article. I'm just worried about the nationalists from either side vandalising this article on its turn on the main page. Comment: Should invite some reasonable editors from Pakistani wikiproject to add more info about its portrayal in Pakistani arts. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article. covers most aspects of the conflict.Arjun 09:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks quite good after the latest rounds of copyediting. —Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Still need more information about Pakistan: who initiated the conflict, why, the fallout internally, who the "freedom fighters" were and where they came from and why, etc.. although this information may or may not (yet) be available. The balance of information in the article is mostly about India, or from an external perspective looking in at Pakistan. But overall this is a complex and difficult subject that Idleguy has taken from this to its current form. well done.-- Stbalbach 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)