Talk:Operation Gibraltar

message: 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 EyeSereneTALK 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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! EyeSereneTALK 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The "Other" Operation Gibraltar

message: 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.
#The infobox needs information added for India's strength and number of casualties. If they are unknown, then just put that.
#"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.
#"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.
#"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review:Pass

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] 

message: I think that my edit have been misunderstood. Mission failed. Pakistan's indefinite success was that it derived enough Indian forces from Punjab 4 Infantry Division were locked in Kashmir accepted by official history of 1965 war by India, which reliable according to Wikipedia M.A.R 1993 (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MISUNDERSTANDING 

message: The portion of the introductory sentence "...with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims...", without proper reference (which it is lacking at present), may be violating WP:NPOV. I checked quite a few of the other references, and none explicitly mention that the attack was instigated with "intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims". Please discuss below the possible rewording the first sentence or inclusion of proper citation. -  Subh83 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in introductory sentence 

message: User_talk:86.147.197.127 is trying to[| edit the ] casualty figure of the indian Army  using the reference http://www.imhs.org.uk/ . I have checked this link and also I have seen the book he is trying to  refer and the book  only covers events till 1947 . This event happened in 1965 . Please comment below if User_talk:86.147.197.127 disagrees with the above. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User_talk:86.147.197.127]] 

message: One source has no mention of this battle, other one has mention but it is not mentioning causalities. Don't reinsert unknown data. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Source falsification

message: has made a series of edits in the last few days, which are invariably unexplained (no edit summaries), and entirely questionable.
* these edits replace the sourced term "Mission failure" with some whitewashing term, replace "50th Airborne paratroopers and Pakistan Army's guerrillas" with "soldiers from Azad Kashmir Regular Force" without explanation, and add detail about a part of the operation.
* second round of edits introduce the POV term "Indian occupied Kashmir," which we avoid on Wikipedia, and make an unsourced insertion that suggests that southwestern Jammu people revolted.
* third round of edits repeat the first edit, citing a spurious source which actually says that irregulars were used by Pakistan, the opposite of what the editor claimed.
* fourth round of edits edit-warred.
I am giving an ARBIPA sanctions notice to . I would advise him to edit very carefully from now on. I intend to report any further violations of Wikipedia policies at WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commandernavy edits 

message: Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict
I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:
* An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
*A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. 
* A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. 
* An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing restrictions 

message: I propose to merge Ghaznavi Force into Operation Gibraltar. It is really part of this subject, and there doesn't seem to be any special content that requires a separate article.  Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be done, don't see anything in the stub of value besides this and the proposal has gone unopposed for a long time now. Gotitbro (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I forgot all about this. Will put it on my to-do list for the coming week. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal