Talk:Sikh intervention in Gilgit/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Stikkyy (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Going to work on this, although my activity will be spotty for a while. Stikkyy (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Infobox for Gilgit region links to Gilgit the city, would Gilgit-Baltistan be a better fit?

Boti Singh and Dam Singh are not found in the body, if they are to remain in the infobox, they should be given a cite.

Gohar Aman should some indicator (a title?) that he was the ruler of Yasin.

Yasin links to Yasin Valley, if its being used as an identifier of allegiance or nationality, better to WP:REDLINK to Principality of Yasin.

"to secure control of the region following the death of its ruler"—Gilgit or Yasin? Having read the rest of the article, and as a complete outsider, I'm still a little confused on how interchangeable the two terms are. Since Yasin (the state) doesn't have a standalone article, you'll necessarily have to explain more to the reader to provide sufficient context.

Background

"high of"→"of high"

"Historically, this region was bordered by Afghanistan, China, and the Russian Empire"—The Russian conquest of Central Asia hadn't advanced to the region in the 1840s, and it's odd that one link leads to the historical Russian Empire, while the other two link to modern states.

The link from 1586 is a WP:EASTEREGG.

Any specifics on the Dardic clan? Were they vassals to the Kashmir Sultanate?

I am given that the region was "once ruled by a Muslim Dardic clan," but the paragraph follows on to mention that "The Muslim Dardic tribes of the region were often hostile to one another and resisted foreign rule."—"once ruled" gives the impression that contemporaneously, Dardic rule had slipped, but it seems like that's not the case?

The context given by the "Kushwaqt family" is wholly unused.

The mention that Gohar Aman was "the eldest son of Mulk Imam" is not notable.

Link Nagir to Nagar (princely state).

Reorder "especially after the death of Raja Tahir Shah of Nagir, who succumbed to an illness."—I think that this section should be ordered chronologically, beginning with Gohar Aman's ascension.

Do we have dates for the first and second invasions?

"After nine months of resistance"→"After nine months"

"However"—Unnecessary.

Where is Gor? Was Karim Khan affiliated with Gilgit (and presumably fighting Aman's invasion), or was he in the service of another entity?

"Keeping in mind that the Sikh Governor, being Muslim, was unlikely to cause any trouble in the future"—Elaborate? Was Karim Khan also Muslim?

Link Srinagar.

Expedition

"Gohar Aman felt loose"—Not sure what this means.

Where is Basin?

Which mountains? You've introduced the Hindu Kush and Karakoram ranges earlier.

"but faced heavy restrictions and was vassalized."→"but was vassalized with heavy restrictions"

Mathura Das has already been introduced two paragraphs up, we already know that he's from Jammu.

Was Gilgit vassalized or occupied? It seems like the status quo of Karim Khan being set up as a client king continued.

"Permanent" seems a bit misleading for an arrangement which only lasted a few years.

Aftermath

"Killed" implies being killed by something, clarify.

"making him the Maharaja of Kashmir"→"making him the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir"

I don't think Dogra should be used as a descriptor, since it's use is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the dynasty (as it seems) or the ethnic group. Suggest "Singh's soldiers", since the time period (until 1856) lies within Singh's reign.

Images

File:Gilgit-Baltistan map with tehsils labelled.png—Suggest this image, seems useful.

File:Pakistan Gilgit-Baltistan relief map.svg—OK

File:Painting of Sikh soldiers stationed in the Jama Masjid in Srinagar, Kashmir, during Sikh-rule, by Godfrey Thomas Vigne, 1835.jpg—There's an unresolved alert regarding the image's license, also WP:WATERMARK. Commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop might be able to help.

@HerakliosJulianus: Sources and spot checks for later. Stikkyy (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

All reviewer comments have been addressed. Heraklios 18:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Continuing on:

Sources

Rai's book has an ISBN.

References

[1] a, b, c— Pass

[4]— Pass, but the Kushwaqt family is still an isolated piece of context. The source seems to suggest that Gohar Aman was a member of the Kushwaqt dynasty, why not mention that?

[5] a, d, e, f— Pass

[b] which intensified following the death of Raja Tahir Shah of Nagar, who succumbed to an illness.—I cannot find the quote in Parmu p.228 which supports this.

[c] under the impression that as a very distant though resourceful Muslim chief he will have no personal axe to grind. But Sheikh Ghulam Muhy-ud-Din, who was under the political control of Gulab Singh of Jammu did not, in fact, could not, take any independent decision vis-à-vis believed that the Sikh governor who was also a Muslim would be more inclined to support his restoration as a dependent ruler rather than impose direct interference.—This seems like WP:OR.

^ If Parmu's assessment that Sheikh Ghulam Muhy-ud-Din was under the thumb of Gulab Singh is to be trusted, I think that it provides a valuable piece of context and would do well in the article.

[8] a, b— Pass, but I suggest that the year the siege took place and Sikander Shah was executed (1840) ought to be included, the fact that two years elapsed between the end of the siege and the military expedition being dispatched seems noteworthy.

[9] a, b, c, d— Pass, but some elaboration appears to rely on [7], which I do not have access to.

[11] a, c, d, e, f— Pass

[b] Nathu Shah was prudent not to advance further and thereby saved his army from being plunged into a disastrous war with the tribes inhabiting the mountainous territory.→in order to avoid the risk of ambush in difficult terrain.—Needs clarification, one gets the impression reading the article that the threat of ambush was from Gohar Aman, not the hill tribes.

Lead

The start date (1842) found in the lead and the infobox should be referred to in the body.

Misc

What, if anything, marks 1844 as the end date of the military conflict? The death of Karim Khan?

@HerakliosJulianus: That's all from me. Stikkyy (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stikkyy Thanks for the follow-up. I’ve corrected the campaign dates to 1842–1843 per Parmu (1977), clarified that the intervention concluded by the end of 1843 after Gohar Aman's defeat, removed unsupported claims, avoided inferred motivation WP:OR, added the 1840 siege date, clarified the ambush context, and referenced 1842 in the body. All points should now be addressed. Heraklios 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, looks good now, passing. Stikkyy (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.