Talk:Ardeshir Tarapore

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ardeshir Tarapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502021809/http://www.indianarmy.nic.in:80/PVC/photo_10.htm to http://indianarmy.nic.in/PVC/photo_10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit

Some observations:

• Is there no more on his WWII experience?
• IMO the "Battle of Chawinda" section needs an initial sentence introducing the war, and possibly the reason for it.
• IMO, immediately after this, you need to state briefly what I Corps' plan was, that Poona Horse was a part of I Corps, and where PH's plan fitted into I Corps' plan.

I have been on the bold side with my edits, so could you check them carefully. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Your edits are excellent. Thanks for your comments, I'll work on them. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: No problem; and thank you. I assume that you are going for GA with this, so I tried to pitch my copy edit at that level. Good luck with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ardeshir Tarapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in a day or two. auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the nomination. I'll be looking forward for your comments. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

(talk • mail) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• minor tweaks on verb agreement and clarity here
• this sentence doesn't make sense to me: However, this operation failed as the presence of Pakistani troops was reported locals. auntieruth (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Thanks for the review. I've amended the sentence to be clear. Kindly take a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Thanks for review. Please update the article class on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: