Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   The first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead doesn't belong here. It raises more questions than it answers. Remove it and merge the second paragraph with the third.

   "His father was P. S. Thapa." - I'd merge this with another sentence, similar to how it is portrayed in the original source. How it is currently presented makes it appear as though P.S. Thapa is someone the reader should know of. Also the source calls him "Shri P.S. Thapa", why do you not use the term Shri?

   You really need to trim the information in the '1962 Sino-Indian War'. It's going off topic in too much detail for the subject of this article. The army opposing plans and Nehru ignoring advice has nothing to do with understanding Thapa's biography. I'd shorten the first paragaph to: "There had long been disagreement between India and China over disputed borders in the Himalaya region. To counter the increasing Chinese intrusions into disputed territory, then Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru approved a plan called the "Forward Policy", which called for the establishment of a number of small posts facing the Chinese." You can keep the second paragraph as is.

   "He was released after the war ended." - when exactly did the war end?

   "For his gallantry actions on 20 October 1962 Major Thapa was awarded the Param Vir Chakra." - POV - should be reworded to "Major Thapa was awarded the Param Vir Chakra for gallantry actions on 20 October 1962."

   Considering you give an entire account of the battle in the 'Battle at Srijap' section, I think it's redundant to give a second account in the manner of including his complete award citation. If I was writing this article, I'd get rid of everything except the last sentence: I.e "The award citation concluded that "Major Thapa’s cool courage, conspicuous fighting qualities and leadership were in the highest traditions of [the] Army."

   I'd rename the section 'Other honours' to 'Legacy'

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   I'm sorry, but I really don't think the article meets the criteria for GA. This article isn't really about Thapa. It's about the Battle at Srijap. There's so much irrelevant information. Example: "Subedar Gurung, who was manning a LMG, was buried when a bunker collapsed on top him. He pulled himself out of the debris and recommenced LMG fire, inflicting heavy casualties among the Chinese until being eventually killed." Why do we need to know this? It has nothing to do with Thapa. We don't really learn that much about Thapa. Who was his mother? We know where he was born, but where did he grow up? Where was he educated? Did he have other jobs before his joined the army? When did he join the army? When was he promoted? What were his interests? When exactly did he retire? When exactly did he work for Sahara Airlines? How did he die? When did he get married? Again, I'm sorry, but I really don't think there's anywhere near enough information on this man (in the article at least) to allow it to meet GA requirements. I'm not trying to brag, but I wrote an article about a soldier once: R. V. C. Bodley. Have a bit of a comparison and see where this article is lacking in coverage.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The infobox image definitely needs a caption (and alts). Where did this painting come from and when was it done?

   I don't think the image of the lake is particularly relevant, but I won't make you remove it.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: I really don't think this can be improved to the point where it could be passed, but I'll place it on hold to give you a chance to respond. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Thanks for review. As I'm having my exams right now, I would be great if you can hold it until 23 April 2018. Meanwhile, I'll try to address the comments whenever I get some spare time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair while to leave open, but OK, I'll wait until the 23rd before closing the nomination and making a final decision. Good luck with your exams. Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Just a reminder that as this has been open for some time I intend to close it on the 23rd. Hope your exams have gone well. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Thanks for the reminder. Yes, my exams went well. I worked up a bit yesterday, and will try to cover up the rest by the end of tomorrow (searching for sources). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I am not able to find enough sources. Kindly decline the submission for now. Thanks for the review, and sorry for keep you on wait. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Better luck with your next nomination or with this again in the future. Freikorp (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]