Talk:Hunza–Nagar Campaign

Naming

Shouldn't this be "Hunza-Nagar"? Was it called the "Hunza-Naga Campaign"?

The disambiguation page for "Naga" (which is currently linked) doesn't refer to the place in Pakistan, but the disambiguation page for "Nagar" does.

Is "Naga" an old synonym for "Nagar"?

The entry for "Nagar" does link to this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagar%2C_Pakistan

Penalba2000 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be a typo. Page moved. --Mhockey (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

B-class review

B-class review

1. It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:

   A few paragraphs are missing in-line citations. Entire paragraphs are attributed to a number of sources, rather than sentences describing the same idea(s). In other words, the citation style is not thorough. The sources cited, however, are of good quality.

2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:

   There is little coverage of the eponymous Hunza–Nagar side. The article at present is heavily skewed towards the British perspective, including minute personal details between British troops, but only speaking of the Hunza and Nagar troops when they retreat or surrender.

3. It has a defined structure:

   The section titles and layout are logical. A "Legacy" section speaking to the campaign's long-lasting consequences and remembrance should be included if possible, as history articles tend to include them to indicate historical significance.

4. It is reasonably well-written:

   The article is written in an unencyclopedic tone and littered with grammatical mistakes and discouraged words (e.g. referring to soldiers as "guys").

5. It contains supporting materials where appropriate:

   The article contains an appropriate infobox and a few appropriately-placed images.

6. It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:

   There is insufficient context for the reader to ascertain the background and major actors of the campaign. Uncommon or foreign words like Mir are presented without explanation. It is evident that the reader's holding of the background knowledge of the topic is assumed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A major issue with this article is that most of its content appears to be closely paraphrased from the sources cited (see Copyvio for caught examples). It is not written in an encyclopedic tone; rather, it evidently employs the narrative techniques of the sources given, which are akin to the storytelling tone common in non-academic literature (such as non-academic books, blogs, video essays, etc.). To obtain a B-class ranking on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, all issues must be remedied, which may require a significant rewrite. Yue🌙 04:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for reviewing the article, the peer review indeed helped in improving the article. As this article was my first revamp i didn't knew much to improve back then. :-) Rahim231 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

B class review: more comments

Listed below are a number of issues with this article. Djmaschek (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Section: Prelude, paragraph 1, last 3 sentences are missing a citation.  Done
• Section: Developments. Titles, place names, and nationalities are sometimes not capitalized. Examples: british, chalt, safdar, thol.

•  Not done Names of people, nationalities, place names, and titles should be capitalized. This is a problem in almost all sections of the article.

• Storytelling tone mentioned by User:Yue (see above) is a problem and is non-neutral. Also, the tense changes from past to present without warning.
• Section: Failed Attempt to take Chalt fort. Who is Yanov?

•  Done Thank you for adding the footnote. I edited the note and text to add capitalization and fix typos.

• Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "In addition to his own wounds, Durand's". The fact that Durand was wounded should be stated plainly, not referred to in an aside.
• Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "Subalterns, with Aylmer and his orderly discharge, would fire..." There is something wrong with this sentence. Please fix.
• Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "Knight quoted..." is missing a citation.
• Section: Aftermath. "thum's followers". Who is Thum?

•  Done Reference to Thum removed. I did not understand this phrase: "pressing ahead of the possessions" so, I removed it. Other edits were made in this section.

• Section: Legacy. "until this day Gigilt Baltistan is a content for dispute and tensions between the former British colonies India and Pakistan". Until what day? When was this statement written? What is "a content for dispute"?

•  Done I also added capitalizations where needed.
• I have improved all the sections as mentioned above and also focused on areas of lacking neutrality with the exception of the sources mostly being british and only providing insight to the conflict compared to the local sources are few and dont provide much detail, might be a reason of non-neutral. Rahim231 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I made a number of edits and added some comments above. I'm not finished. Djmaschek (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Capitalization: Done most of it.

  Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "Knight quoted...", Added citation and corrected the year issue.

  Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "In addition to his own wounds, Durand's" changed to :- Durand got injured, also his lone machine gun was jamming, therefore he handed over the command.

  Section: Siege of Nilt fort. "Subalterns, with Aylmer and his orderly discharge, would fire...", changed to :- Aylmer and the troops at his command. Rahim231 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I have done further edits to make the article neutral, and improved other sections as well. Rahim231 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Rahim231: Because I have made so many edits, this review is taking a long time. I am not finished yet. Djmaschek (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  • 1-Actually Mortimer Durand and Algernon George Arnold Durand are different persons and both are brothers. Colonel Durand there in (Develpoments section) was meant to be Algernon Durand, i wrote it as Algernon Durand instead of colonel durand and in whole article i did the same to aviod any confusion.

    source for Being different persons and Brothers :-

    2-It was a mistake, Algernon Durand Assembled and led the force's fixed that too.

    3-Edited

    Book:-

    • Hussain, Shafqat (April 28, 2015). Remoteness and Modernity Transformation and Continuity in Northern Pakistan (ebook). Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300213355.

@Djmaschek: *:Rahim231 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• There are two persons named Durand listed. Algernon George Arnold Durand (Prelude section) and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand (Developments section). For the British political agent, I used Sir Mortimer Durand and make it clear that Colonel Durand is Algernon George Arnold Durand. I used Colonel Durand and Mortimer Durand to tell the two apart.
• In Developments, paragraph 2, it says Mortimer Durand assembled the 1,000-man force. So, did he hand over the military command to Colonel Algernon Durand? Or is this a mistake, and Algernon Durand actually assembled the force?
• Edit Prelude, Developments, Failed Attempt, Sieges of fortress, and Aftermath sections to clear up grammar, spelling, syntax, and sentence structure issues.

@Rahim231: Looks good. B class. Thanks for writing about an obscure, but very interesting campaign. Djmaschek (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Normally dates are rendered 1 March 2024 or March 1, 2024. You used the form March 1st. Djmaschek (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article and classifiying this as B-class,

• For form March 1st where was this written, if its some mistake then i will fix that too.

Rahim231 (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)