Talk:Peshawar
![]() | Peshawar was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 18, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Pakistan B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
Infobox picture
The picture of the Khyber Pass is misleading. The Pass is not in peshawar and would be appropriate for an article on FATA or NWFP.
- Can you get a hold of a more appropriate free picture? Donama 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the criticism of Khyber Pass picture. I will try to get some good free pictures.
- I have moved the Khyber Pass image down to a more appropriate section and have changed the image to the Islamia College. I have made more improvments to the articles to make it more inline with the Lahore and Karachi articles. Let me know of your comments. Thanks Fast track 00:32 06 July 06 (UTC)
Photograph request!
Just like to put in a request for more better quality images of Peshawar to Wikipedia Commons, so they can be added to this article and Peshawar related articles. Thanks Fast track 00:36 06 July 2006 (UTC)
Good Article on hold
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
{{subst:#if:|
{{{overcom}}}|}}
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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):
- {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}
- Pass/Fail:
I am keeping this article on hold for seven days. If enough inline citations are introduced in that time, it will easily pass as a good article. -Runningonbrains 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Failed GA
This article fails criterion 2b: Inline references and citations. However, overall, this is an excellent article, and once inline citations are introduced, I would suggest re-nominating. In my opinion, it should then pass easily. -Runningonbrains 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to disagree- at least at this time.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), I believe some sections (Educational institutions & Sites of interest) are over-linked.
- Sites of interest also provides little extra content and context other than an excessive & unhelpful list.
- The History section is (without subsections) too long and needs breaking down in to eras or associated timeframes.
- Per WP:LEAD, the opening section at one paragraph is too short.
- Many statements would benefit from having their sources directly cited; whilst there is a large References list, comments from these sources would be better used in the Footnotes section.
- For example, "It has been argued that an ancient city named Pushkalwati, founded by Bharat's son Pushkal, may have existed in this general area during ancient Indian times before the Persian invasion of the Indian subcontinent." - needs directly referencing.
- The Demographics section has many facts and figures but the exact source is unknown to the user in the present condition.
- The References section currently acts more like a Further reading section without their use in the text being more closely defined.
- Should these be met, I believe the article would be a VERY GOOD ARTICLE. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- As part of GA, you may wish to visit Wikipedia:Peer review for further suggestions. Jhamez84 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to include the FACT that peshawar was once Afghanistans land 99 years ago. Afghanistan had a contract signed with Britain that it would be Pakistans for 92 years and that mark has passed. The pakis know that Afghanistan can not take the land back until they are settled in as a country so Pakistan is trying to mess that up by sending suicide bombers in saying its Al Qaeda and all. Peshawar is Afghan land and they have every right to say they are Afghan! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.39.15 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Reply to above: The agreement the above writer mentions did not have an expiry clause and Peshawar is owned by the folks who lived there, not some afghan king. Peshawar is a Pakistani and Pakhtun city.