Operation All Clear was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 20, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation All Clear was the first operation conducted by the Royal Bhutan Army?

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Assam / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Bhutan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BhutanWikipedia:WikiProject BhutanTemplate:WikiProject BhutanBhutan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force

Page views of this article over the last 90 days: Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

G'day, good work on improving this article. I don't have time at the moment to do a GA review on this, unfortunately, as I am in the process of moving but I have a couple of suggestions that might help you:

• the lead is currently very short, but for a GA it should probably be expanded a bit. I'd suggest at least two paragraphs that fully summarise the article;
• the writing style is very repetitious, with many sentences and paragraphs starting in a similar way. For a GA, I would like to see more variation in language so that there is a distinct narrative flow. There are also many single sentence or very short paragraphs that probably should be merged
• the infobox mentions strengths and casualty figures, I'd suggest working these also into the body of the article where possible
• "Facing continuous pressure, Assamese militants relocated their camps in Bhutan" --> should this read: "Facing continuous pressure, Assamese militants relocated their camps to Bhutan"?
• the link between the first and second paragraphs on the background section should be highlighted a bit more clearly, as it doesn't seem clear to the casual reader who the ULFA and NDFB were.
• "KLO had also been allegedly involved" --> probably best here to attribute the allegation in text. For instance, "According to X, the KLO had also..."
• in the footnotes, per WP:ALLCAPS you should avoid using all capital letters;
• "In a follow-up action to the operation, 22 Bhutanese civilians were found guilty of aiding the separatists ..." when was this?
• "...facing trial on similar charges as of July 2004" --> what has happened since 2004? Were they convicted?
• the Operation section currently doesn't give a very clear picture of what actually happened on the ground. For instance, "The army seized ULFA’s central command headquarters located at Phukatong in Samdrup Jongkhar" --> how did they do this, what tactics did they use, how many personnel took part in the attack, etc.
• the list in the Aftermath probably should have a suitable introductory stem sentence added. For instance, "Over the period, several incidents took place including:..."
• I suggest checking that all the sources satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. I haven't checked them myself, but the appearance of Wikileaks concerned me (I don't know if it is considered a reliable source, but I would never use it personally). Perhaps you could confirm them at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard?
• I'd probably swap the two images around, moving the map to the body, and the photograph to the infobox. If there was a photo of the soldiers undertaking the operation, or something similar, that would also be a good inclusion (although it is likely going to be very hard to find);

Anyway, good luck taking the article further. Thanks for your hard work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review now.--Dom497 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is way to short. Expand it so that it covers the basics of the entire article.

• The entire "Background" section needs to be re-written. The section reads as a "list". Re-write the section using full paragraphs.

• Personally I'm not a fan of sections being only a list (aka, the "Operations" section). I would suggest merging the list into paragraphs, just like what I said for the "Background" section.

• AustralianRupert left a really good batch of comments on the article talk page and I agree with all of his points. Take a look at his comments and address them please (his last point regarding the images isn't a concern of mine though).

@Catlemur: I'm going to stop reviewing right now. Given that most of the article needs to be re-written, I probably should fail it but I'll give you 7 days to address both my comments and the comments by AustralianRupert before continuing the review further.--Dom497 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your hard work.The timing of this review is quite unfortunate, I am really busy with chores, study issues e.t.c., so I will be only be doing no brainer edits in the coming months.--Catlemur (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: I'll leave the review open until Tuesday just in case you magically find the time. :) --Dom497 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow forgot about this....closing now.--Dom497 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Operation All Clear. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4394
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8607
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3588

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voiv 119.2.125.188 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]