Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 4 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Pakistan

[edit]

This article has gone through an extensive makeover in the past 5-6 weeks and I believe that it currently meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose Almost there though: Some issues:
  1. Following independence... twenty-fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. -- split and cpedit.
  2. border dispute Kashmmir is not a border dispute. It's also territorial. I've fixed it
  3. The tourism part in the economy sections reads like a brochure. plz tone it down. See Nepal and Bhutan.
    Please refer to [1] to populate the economy section. The tourism part needs to go. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The image gallery in the =Society and culture= section needs to go.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think three of the four items you mentioned have been looked at and edited as such. However, I'm not sure I understand your objection about the Kashmir border/territorial dispute. Footnote 2 explains that China, India, and Pakistan all administer parts of Kashmiri region. Footnote 23, which was added after your comment, explains that India does not recognize Azad Kashmir nor the Northern Areas. IMO this sufficently explains that there is a territorial dispute. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A light copyedit by someone not associated with the nom would improve the text significantly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose also, the images need to have their copyright clarified. The image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah claims expired copyright and refers to a website. I checked that site out and cant find the image. Given that he died in 1948 (most photos would be this) if the photo was taken and published in India before 1946 then this image needs to have that confirmed and stated in its description. Images from world66 are creative commons with the requirement of acknowledging the author, i have fixed one but other images need to have this fixed. There is also an image with a template requesting the uploader to confirm copyright status. On the dates BCE and CE have been used, a wikilink to an article explaining what BCE and CE are would be helpful . Aside from these small fixes well done its an interesting article that kept my attention and deserves to achieve FAC Gnangarra 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i found an article and linked BCE Gnangarra
Comment: It might be easier to just pick another image of the mosque from a PD or a creative commons work. Try these [2]. These images are CC-Attrib 2.0 images. You may want to search for additional images here too that might help satisfy any copyright concerns of other images currently used in your article. AreJay 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a similar picture of the same mosque and a similar vantage point by the same author on commons. I have since substituted it into the article. Also, the Muhammad Ali Jinnah picture has been removed and replaced with another picture, one whose status is confirmed to be within the public domain. Pepsidrinka 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Pakistan has the largest expatriate community of any Muslim country with large numbers living in Australia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Citation required.
    2. Pakistani emigrants and their children influence Pakistan culturally and economically by regularly returning to and investing in Pakistan. That's a blanket statement, considering the assertion above that the country has the largest Muslim expatriate community. Please delete this sentence.
    3. The climate varies as much as the scenery.. theme repeated from the first sentence of the second paragraph on Geography. AreJay 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two issues you addressed have been looked at and have been edited per your recommendations. A {{fact}} tag has been added and the editors of this article are looking for an appropriate citation. Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir article is fairly balanced. --digitalSurgeon 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakStrong support While I acknowledge the tremendous effort that has gone into this article, I'm unable to offer a strong support before the following issues are fixed.
    1. The lead could do well with a little copyediting. Not a major issue though.
    2. Needs a reference for the assertion "imprudent policies led to a slowdown in the late 1990s."
    3. "Recent decades have seen the emergence of a middle class in cities like Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Sukkur and Peshawar but the northwestern regions bordering Afghanistan, remain highly conservative and dominated by centuries-old regional tribal customs." - The link between "middle class" and "liberalism" is not explicit. Definitely it's not obvious.
    4. The mountaineering mention in "Society and culture" needs to be reworded.
    5. The article as a whole could benefit from a copyedit by someone who hasn't actively edited this article. Perhaps Tom can help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A citation has been added for the economic slowdown of the '90s and the mountaineering sentence has been tweaked. The article has been copyedited again (though by an active editor of the article). The other issue will shortly be addressed. Pepsidrinka 06:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A citation has been added in regards to the liberalist/middle class. The sentence has been reworded to make itmore explicit that the middle class is of a more secular/liberal nature as compared to the northwester conservatists. Pepsidrinka 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That citation is really weak. It does not give any information and when I clicked on it you get a subscriber site. You should provide the title and author, assuming it is some kind of an opinion piece. Furthermore, recent riots over the cartoons in urban areas seem to indicate that it is not something confined to frontier areas.(Blacksun 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak support: Really nice article. However, their is one thing that I found to be in gray area and bit misleading: "In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, Pakistan's GDP growth rate was 8.4%, the second-highest after China, among the ten most populous countries in the world." I do not disagree with the figure. However, that growth rate was from an extraordinary weak base of previous few years. Considering the context, I find the statement to be bit misleading but it is not enough to oppose an otherwise fairly good article. Just my two cents. Good job. --Blacksun 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 8.4% figure was the number released by the PM, Shaukat Aziz. Please by all means, discuss it on the article talk page if you would like to encourage other editors of the page to chime in. Pepsidrinka 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Incidently, that figure is also used by the CIA World Factbook. Pepsidrinka 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have been watching this article for a while and indeed it has gone under major changes and corrections that I feel it should be selected as a feature article. Fast track 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. We have references in the reference section that we don't know what they are there to support. Should be called a further reading section, not a reference section. Also, there is no decent map of Pakistan in this article. On another note, the map pertaining to the ethnic groups shows the Soviet Union! Do we have nothing more recent? --Bob 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As explained already on the talk page of the article (though I'll explain for others who haven't read the dialogue on the talk page), the References were there prior to the current group of editors editing the page, and prior to this current trend where inline citations is the standard. If you take a look at older FAs, many do not have inline citations, as they weren't apart of the standard. Things have changed now. However, when the current group of editors started pushing for a FA, they added inline citations for those facts that needed it. As far as I know, it is not necessary for every fact to have a corresponding inline citation (this is explained further on the talk page). So the References section are references used by editors in the past, and assuming good faith that they are actually used in the article, it is my opinion that they should stay in the article, and be appropriately named References. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over something like this. Pepsidrinka 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm with Pepsidrinka on this. I feel there's a distinction between the Notes and References sections. Notes contains specific in-line citations while References contains material that was used to gain a general understanding of the subject. As Pepsidrinka pointed out, the article lacked in-line citations before he and Green Giant and the new team of editors came on board. However, portions of the article existed in some state prior to their edits and the past editors had, it appears, referenced the material contained in the References section. I don't think the articles in the References section need to tie in directly and specifically to sentences in the article. I don't see how this particular objection can be satisfied short of tracking down this article's many previous editors and having them identify what they specifically referenced from each of those links. AreJay 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pakistan&oldid=1080990243"