# Talk:Joginder Singh (soldier)

nice fiction
now can we get a real biography for this guy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.150 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 
It is not a fiction,true story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.19.198 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 

It is a bad idea to delete contributions to talk pages. If there are any issues to content, feel free to add/modify what you like with proper, verifiable references. Also, this is not a forum. Keep discussion on point, with respect to content.Myopia123 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joginder Singh (soldier)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this one. Initial comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Infobox

add place of death?
Unit in full: 1st Battalion, Sikh Regiment
Lead

"Singh was recruited into...": This doesn't read quite right; it would be appropriate if the army actively solicited Singh, i.e. made him an offer, for the army. I'm assuming this was not the case, and he "volunteered" or "joined" the army. Could a soldier volunteer for a specific unit? If not, then it may need clarifying that he was posted to the 1st Battalion. This comment also applies to the first sentence after the "Military career" heading.
"First Battalion": should be "1st Battalion".
Early life

"He was motivated to join the Army, on feeling...": doesn't read quite right. I suggest: "He decided to join the Army, considering that it..."
"Army": "army" (or better yet, "British Indian Army")
Military career

"Singh was recruited in to...": rephrase, suggest: On joining the British Indian Army, Singh was posted to the 1st Battalion, Sikh Regiment, on..."
End of the first sentence: reverse the order of the refs (at the moment [3] is before [1]).
Note 4 appears to be for the wrong page number
Probably needs a one-liner about staying in the army post-independence.
Is it really necessary? That is evident. Also none of the sources specifically mention this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Sino-Indo war

This paragraph needs more context at its beginning. Suggest: "There had long been disagreement between India and China over disputed borders in the Himalaya region." This will then flow better into the current first sentence.
This paragraph probably could be condensed; while some context is useful to explain why Singh was there, there is too much irrelevant detail.
Battle at Bumla

7th Infantry Brigade: if Singh's battalion was part of this, then mention it.
", weak communication lines etc." the use of etc is un-encyclopedic. Rephrase to "inadequate ammunition and weak communication lines."
"The post was under the command of Subedar Joginder Singh...": rephrase to "The post was under the command of Singh, now a subedar,..." (and link subedar).
"...the survivors are only...": rephrase to "...the survivors were only..."
The last paragraph of this section uses emotive, i.e. non-encyclopedic, language. Eg "unmindful of their safety" and could be tightened up. Also "he single-handedly killed fifty enemy soldiers"; 50 soldiers does not seem credible despite what the source says. I suggest "several" instead.
Param Vir Chakam

The first sentence does not need to recite Singh's full name and rank. Also emotive language: desperately, last moments
The citation for the PVC should be cited consistently with the remainder of the article, i.e. harvard style.
"The urn was later brought to the Sikh Regimental Centre at Meerut and was eventually handed over to his wife." Also should "Centre" be headquarters?
Other honours

"IB ridge": I assume this is a specific place? If so, then ridge should be "Ridge".
References

Notes 3, 11 and 12 appear to be links to news articles. The presentation of each is a little inconsistent, eg dates of publication. Also no need to mention "Limited" (for note 3).
Note 11 is a web source, corrected the rest. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Other stuff

Image appears to have appropriate fair-use rationale
Dupe links: Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru
That's all for now. Cheers., Zawed (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I have made the changes as required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking good, I made a few copyedits. I believe that this article is well written, in a neutral tone, and is accurately sourced and am passing it as a GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid a ridiculous amount of POV has been added in the process of taking this page to a GA nomination:

There is a section preamble on Sino-Indian War, which has a {{Main}} article link, but the content here has nothing to do with that article. Instead, it is based on Ian Cardozo's booklet, which is not a WP:HISTRS. Moreover, his ramblings on the western section have been added. Bum La is not in the western sector. So what is all this stuff doing here?
Then the section on Battle at Bum La starts with Namka Chu. Once again, Namka Chu is not at Bum La, and there is a huge mountain range between them. So why is this stuff here?
The precise sequence of events that led to X and Y are hardly relevant here. The fact is that China wanted to implement its preferred version of the border settlement, which nobody in India was ready to accept. So China used force to impose it.
I am sure the Army generals have a lot of heartburn, but the fact of the matter is that most of the failings are those of Army genreals themselves. Here is an example:

He [General Kaul] described all the obstacles confronting him, including the estimate that 7 Brigade now faced an entire Chinese division. Yet he left the impression that things could still be done through heroic effort, which he was prepared to undertake.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)