Wikipedia:Peer review/Kargil Review Committee/archive1

Kargil Review Committee

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added over 94% of the content currently and the topic is related to a report that had far reaching implications for the Indian security system at a national level which are still being implemented to date. I would also request for comments related to any copyright violations, if found. Although I have checked for copyright violations, but I would still request someone to double check. (I have reduced copyvio as much as possible, names and quotes etc aside, of course). If possible, fact checking would be a good idea too. I have tried to make sure that the content is as accurate as possible, but again, since I have added over 94% os the content, asking for a peer review would also be a good idea. Before any more major expansion is done from my side, I want to be ensure that the current content is a good base, structured well, has no copy vios and is fact checked reasonably. This is a lot to ask, so accordingly I will add to other review requests shortly.

Thanks, DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, congratulations on your first article! I took a quick glance through the results of Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I don't seen anything that raises a warning flag. The vast majority of the matching text can't or shouldn't be changed, such as the names of groups. If you want to work on finer details, you could look for bits of matching text you can change, and reword those. For example in this comparison, you see 'Age profile of the army','could perhaps have been avoided', and 'surprise to the Indian government'.

This isn't mandatory, more a low-pressure suggestion which might give you a fresh view of the article. I'll let another editor (or several) work with you on the fact-checking and structure, and wish you the best of luck. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• ∯WBG^converse 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your efforts on the article so far. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• in the lead, complete eviction of Pakistani intruders: suggest finding a different word to "intruders" as it might be seen as promoting a point of view. Maybe "soldiers" or "troops"?
• are there any images that might be added -- even maybe a generic one related to the conflict?
• in the Members section, does citation 11 cover the committee members? If it does, I suggest adding it thusly: "consisted of:[11]"
• is there a citation that could be added for the Recommendations?
• the Recommendations section begins "The first recommendation..." but doesn't seem to refer to any others. Were there other recommendations?
• Task forces were formed by the GoM, as suggested in the KRC report: --> "Several task forces were formed by the GoM, as suggested in the KRC report. These were:"
• there a citation that could be added for the above mentioned list?
• every item in the Timeline ection needs a reference
• is there a citation for the quote beginning "To review the events leading up to the Pakistani aggression"?
• DelhiSeptember 26, Prabhash K. Dutta New; September 26, 2018UPDATED: -- the parameters in the citation need to be reworked as this does not make sense
• Various recommendation have not been fully: "recommendations" -- also needs a citation
• border areas as well as the country -- > missing something: "border areas as well as the rest of the country" (or similar depending on what is meant)
  • @DiplomatTesterMan:: as this review has been open for several months now with no follow on comments, I suggest it be closed. Do you have any objections to this? I can help you with doing this if you need a hand with it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying here.

Thank you for these points AustralianRupert. I will incorporate the changes suggested.

BlackcurrantTea, thanks for the pointers too.

I have no objections to the PR being closed. Thanks.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)