Talk:Hina Rabbani Khar/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are some faults in the article, which I found out. Firstly there are many places where there are only general references only, but no inline citations. There is also original research in the infobox for Minister of State for Finance and Economics Affairs there are dates and predecessor and successor which are not sourced, which also applies to birth date and religion. There are many dead links which have made difficult to verifu facts stated in the article. Also the article has no information post 2012/13 and says nothing about the end of tenure as foreign minister. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming reassessment

Although Royrobdeb has not edited on Wikipedia for over four months, this individual reassessment should continue because the article clearly needs significant work to meet the GA criteria. I have checked, and the only real work since this was opened 15 months ago has been to the lead section.

There are a number of issues beyond those raised by Royroydeb. Unfortunately, one of them is the revised lead section, which is now four paragraphs, longer than an article of just under 10,000 prose characters should be (the recommended length is one to two paragraphs, and I'd certainly expect two). Also, there is much information in the lead that does not appear in the article proper, including the end of the third paragraph and the entire final paragraph. This all needs to be added to the body, preferably with additional details, while some may not be needed here in the lead.

Done rearranged, added details and condensed lead into key points. still not sure about it though.

Other issues include:

Early life and family: the bulk of the family text is uncited

Done cited or removed the uncitable information

I'm unsure why the restaurant is considered "Early life" if she was in her 30s at that point; I'm also dubious as to whether it should be called a "chain" with only two locations; if there are plans to expand, then "chain" might be okay, but the plans should be mentioned.

Done moved to personal life; removed "chain"

Education subsection: the second paragraph has prose issues, especially the final sentence, which is highly repetitive and contains at least one of the "words to watch" (not allowed in GAs)

Done fixed prose, got rid of "notable"

Career section: I'm not sure why this isn't called "Political career", since it only talks about that]

Done

it is unclear why she left politics: did she not run in 2013, or did she run and fail to win a seat, hence her retirement. If her party did not win the election, this article should say so, as it is germane.

Done written a new section

the article ought to mention what she has done since her retirement from politics. (There's a tiny bit in the lead, but there should be more: if she has a job or other occupation, that ought to be listed.)

Done as above, tied into that.

That's it for the moment. I plan to allow the standard seven days for these issues to be addressed, though if work is in progress, since there is a lot to do, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the thorough review. Whilst never having edited the article before, this article sparked some interest in me, and hence I have striven to fix the above points. I therefore ask if you could take another look? jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jcc, thanks for expressing interest and for working on the article. I have taken another look at the article, and it's much better—well on its way to being retained as a Good Article. I've also done some copyediting of my own, which in part reorders and combines some similar material. Please check to make sure I didn't make any mistakes and that the references are still with their proper material; I tried to be careful while moving things around.

There is one place where I didn't trust myself to do this kind of reordering and revising, and that is in the Political career section. The second paragraph starts "Khar came to prominence", but the exact same phrase occurs at the start of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs subsection, and that subsection's first sentence seems to cover much the same ground as earlier, but with different details. If I may suggest, let the subsection be about the 2008 appointment as Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, and deal with her earlier titles and appointments in the initial Political career paragraphs. It's best if you stick with chronological order for such material.

Finally, in the last Foreign minister paragraph before the Significance subsection, the "graduation condition" (in quotes) is mentioned. I'd like to suggest that you use a description that's more like what was used when she first ran because her father was disqualified, and you could even refer back to it here. (It was part of the material I made edits to, so make sure it's still okay.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:

Done I think. I'm not terribly sure, however, if it was what you wanted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jcc, I'm sorry it took so long, but I've finally had a chance to go over your edits and also check a few of the sources. Things look generally good, and I've done a small amount of copyediting, but I think the Minister of State for Economic Affairs subsection could use a little work, and a new title, since it's covering her career through a number of ministerial titles. Indeed, the CV source (FN19) notes an early Parliamentary Secretary role in the Economic Affairs sphere that should be added here; perhaps a title like "Economic and Finance positions", or even just the ultimate title she had, Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs", should be used for the header, while the section details the various roles she had up through that one, just as the Foreign minister section starts with her posts that led up to the ultimate appointment in that sphere. Once you've got this done, and you've fixed the one bare URL reference (FN9), I'll take one more look at this, perhaps do a bit more copyediting, and then I imagine it will be time to conclude this reassessment by retaining the article's GA status. Thanks again for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks! I've done a bit more work- what do you think? jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current progress

jcc, again there's great improvement, and I thought to do a final edit this evening to get the article to the point that I could happily sign off on it. Unfortunately, I've found some instances of close paraphrasing verging on copyvio while doing so, and after taking care of several instances, I hit my limit. Some past contributors have, unfortunately, thought nothing of copying in a sentence or two from an article—not even attempting to paraphrase, and in at least one instance, combining separate bits into a single quote and not distinguishing which were Khar's words and which the publication's author's. Source 45 (from tribune.com.pk/story/333452) is a case in point: the opening sentence of the source is copied virtually intact, with only the opening words adjusted to better fit the Wikipedia article. These have occured throughout the article; the phrase dealt extensively with the donor community during the 2005 earthquake that hit Northern Pakistan is identical to the source's wording (14). Unfortunately, the Copyvio Detector is not a good guide: many of these violations occur in sources where the likelihood of copying is said to be "Violation unlikely"—14.5% for source 45 and 13.0% for source 14, yet both are clear violations. Now, some of these will be quotes, which is allowed, but I don't have time to go down to the 8% level, which is the lowest I've personally ever found evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave the rest to you: you'll have to look through the copyvio check on Hina Rabbani Khar and use your own words in place of (or delete, or perhaps quote if appropriate) the copied text. I'm happy to check it after it's complete.

There is one thing that I think still needs clarification in the article, and that is why Khar's time as Foreign Minister came to an end. My understanding is that the PPP's five-year election mandate ran out, and there was no agreement on an interim cabinet between the various factions, so the government had to be replaced by a caretaker prime minister and cabinet while the election was scheduled, thus Khar was out of a cabinet job. But I realize my understanding is likely incomplete, if not potentially inaccurate, and the actual info would also need a new source that described the change and its effective date. Please find and add that when you can. Thanks, and sorry for the less than joyous news. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll probably need a bit more time, given the scale. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I still intend to work on this as soon as I have a spare moment; I have started though. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, jcc. I'm happy to wait until you've had time to finish. Just let me know when you're done. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:- what do you think about the copyvios now- Earwig still displays with quite high levels, but I can't actually find anything more short of getting rid of quotes? jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding reassessment

I did some final checks, adjusted one quote and did a bit more work on one section of close paraphrasing, and I'm happy to say that I'm satisfied with the excellent work jcc has done to bring this article back up to GA quality. As I noted earlier, the Copyvio Detector's weakness is that it can't distinguish between inappropriate copying and valid quoting; the quoting in the article is fine and doesn't need to be reduced, in my opinion.

This reassessment is being closed as "kept". Congratulations. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]