Talk:Battle of Burki

Some suggestions

Good work so far. I have assessed this article as Start class as I believe it needs a bit more work with referencing, coverage and grammar. I believe that it could be improved in the following ways:

• there is a spelling mistake in the infobox: "Failure of the Pakistani tank assault and courter attack towards Lahore" ("courter" should be "counter");
• are there page numbers for the books that are cited? These should be included as they help readers verify that the article is accurate;
• the bare urls in References # 5 and 6 could be formatted with the {{cite web}} template to give them a cleaner look;
• there is a mixture of English variation, for example: "armor" and "armour" - these should be consistent;
• there are a number of grammatical errors in the article. A couple of examples:
  • in the Prelude, "Pakistan operation launch Operation Grand Slam to relieve infiltrators who got surrounded after the failure of Operation Gibraltar and try to cut off the Indian supply". This should probably be: "Pakistan launched Operation Grand Slam in an effort to relieve infiltrators who had been surrounded after the failure of Operation Gibraltar and to attempt to cut off the Indian supply lines". (Also, you should probably include the date that Operation Grand Slam was launched in this sentence);
  • in the Aftermath, "Fighting Fifth battalion of the Indian Army which..." This should probably be: "The Fighting Fifth Battalion, which played an important part in capturing Burki, was later conferred with the battle honour "Burki" and the theatre honour "Punjab".;
• in relation to the grammar, I suggest requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. This can be requested at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, but I suggest waiting until the article has been expanded a bit further before making the request;
• in the lead, who is "Lieut-Colonel Bhullar"? What is his full name? Was he Indian or Pakistani? What was his exact role? He is not mentioned in the main body of the prose at all, which he should be if he was as important as the lead suggests;
• in the lead, the location of Burki is mentioned. That is fine but it should also be mentioned in the main body of the article too. I suggest adding it to the Prelude or a Background section, which could help provide more context to the article;
• in the lead, words like "enemy" should be avoided, as this creates the impression of a point of view;
• I suggest combining the two "Importance" sections into a broader "Background" section, or just rolling them into the Prelude;
• the Battle section is quite small and probably needs more detail. For example, take a look at the Battle of the Bulge and Battle of Gettysburg articles - these are quite detailed. Of course, the amount of detail that is possible is dependant upon the amount of coverage in reliable sources, so it might not be possible to include the same level of detail, but I think it should at least be possible to expand the article a bit further;
• the prose should mention the specific units that were involved on both sides (if they are known), as well as mentioning the strengths, casualties and the main commanders (currently the commanders are listed in the infobox, but these are not mentioned in the prose);
• in the lead and in the infobox it mentions airstrikes, but these are not mentioned in the main body of the prose. If it is known, more information about the size of these strikes, and the units involved, should be included in the Battle section;
• the infobox mentions that India lost four tanks, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article - could this be elaborated on?
• are the infantry losses known at all? Currently the infobox only lists tank losses;
• the Aftermath section should be expanded to discuss broader implications of the battle on the war and subsequent events. For example, did the Indians continue to advance to Lahore, or were they stopped before they got there? What was the next major battle that occured?;
• if possible, the inclusion of a map showing the location of where the battle took place and key adjacent localities would be a good addition;
• if you wish for further feedback, you might consider nominating the article for a Military history project peer review. Doing that might produce a few more suggestions for improvement, although currently there is a shortage of active reviewers, so it may not receive a full review unfortunately.

Anyway, good luck with expanding the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work addressing these suggestions. I've upgraded the assessment now. There are still a couple of issues, but I think it should be enough for B class now. I performed a light copy edit, but I still suggest requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and a peer review as these might help you if you are hoping to take the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Burki was part of the Indian Invasion of Lahore

Since this battle was part of the Indian Invasion of lahore 1965 which itself was part of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war, it's better to label it as part of the lahore front/Indian Invasion of lahore since this was an attack on undisputed land which should be highlighted. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically, yes, it is part of the Lahore Front, but this was not such a large war that it needs to be dealt with in terms of various "fronts". Besides, the Lahore Front page is hardly enlightening. So I don't see anything served by subdividing things in this way.

On the whole, I am also pretty tired of numerous editors coming and wanting to tweak this and that tidbit, while the articles themselves remain in pitiable shape with no decent sources or coverage. On the whole, none of these efforts show any interest in building an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording on the battle section.

I changed some of the wording on the battle section to this (as best as I can remember): "bombers with bombs and missiles" to "bombers", "of" to "on" (I don't remember why, but I'll remember why in a bit), Changed "ground strafing" to "strafing". You guys have any thoughts on these changes? Maybe some suggestions? Nunyanator (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)