Talk:Pakistan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a very good, well-written article. At the time of first review, it falls short of the good article criteria in several areas. However, with a little bit of work, I think it could be brought up to standards.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Mostly passes on this account. I made a few minor copyedits, but there are no major issues. One thing that I saw a bit of is in the placement of citations -- citations should be placed immediately after punctuation marks, with no space between, and not in the middle of sentences.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There is one 'citation needed' tag that needs to be addressed (see below). Most of the other citations are good, and information is reliable. I don't see any WP:OR issues. Moving towards featured status, I would recommend converting all citations to citation templates, and trying to include as much information as possible (e.g. full author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved, etc); though I think most of the citation formatting is at a minimum acceptability for GA.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article still needs sections on Communications and Transportation, per Wikiproject Countries guidelines (see below). Order of sections could be improved (see below).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Does not appear to have any WP:NPOV violations.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Don't see any recent evidence of edit-wars or WP:3RR violations. The article is currently semi-protected (since 28 May 2009, protected by YellowMonkey, though it's been several months, so whatever reasons the article was semi-protected may no longer apply now. It might be simply due to the violence and situation along the Afghanistan border?
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
See below for image issues.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article does not currently meet all of the GA criteria, but I think the issues are addressable. So I will place the article on hold until 2/27/2010 (two weeks) so that they may be resolved. WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section: Reasonably good. There's a couple of minor issues. First, does this statement really need a citation: "Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country in South Asia."? It seems pretty obvious and easily verifiable. As a matter of fact, three of the citations in the lead really are citing rather obvious material. Per WP:LEAD guidelines, the section should be a summary, so citations should largely be unnecessary here.

"It has a 1,046 kilometres (650 mi) coastline..." -- "kilometres" really shouldn't be plural, though I see that a template is being used here for the km/mi conversion, so that is part of that issue.

Third paragraph: Seems to repeat "in the world" three times. The statement on second largest muslim population as well as second largest Shia muslim population is also somewhat repetitive. This makes for some awkward reading.

History section looks good, after a few minor copyedits. One concern is that there is an image of "The Priest King" at the top of the section, yet there is no mention of that, or of "Sindhi Ajruk", in the article text.

Government: The statement "Pakistan is a semi-presidential federal democratic republic with Islam as the state religion" seems like it would be a better lead statement for that first paragraph, instead of the last sentence there. e.g. introduce what Pakistan's government is first, and then get into the details of the Constitution.

"During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s Pakistan was a major U.S. ally." -- This statement has a 'citation needed' tag that needs resolving prior to GA.

The separate 'Military' section could probably be included as a subsection of 'Government', since it's related. Although Wikiproject countries has it as its own section, so either is fine.

Demographics/languages: The languages subsection seems to be pertinent and reasonably well-cited. However, the image to the right of the section outlining the locations of major ethnic groups only fits the section somewhat marginally, since the section doesn't tie in the languages spoken with specific ethnic groups very well.

The 'Flora and Fauna' section might be better included as a subsection within 'Geography and climate', as opposed to a separate section. The content seems very related.

The 'Economy' section could be written better. There's some fairly broad, generalized statements like "Pakistan has a semi-industrialized economy" and "Pakistan is a rapidly developing country", yet the presence of multiple citations on statements like this lead me to believe that there's more information in those citations that could be included in the article.

The second sentence, "The growth poles of the Pakistani economy are situated..." seems to be a long, run-on sentence and would be better if broken up.

Would be nice to include some examples of some of the largest corporations and businesses in Pakistan. Both domestic corporations, as well as some of the major foreign-owned companies as well.

Education: The image of Punjab University's campus is nice, but there is no text in the article discussing it. It might be a good idea to include some information on some of the top and/or more popular schools and colleges in Pakistan.

Tourism: "naturally decorated cave"? Is this the name of the cave, or do you mean "other naturally-decorated caves"?

Sports: "although cricket is the most popular game across the country." -- broad, generalized comment with no citation.

Outline of Pakistan: The section only contains a template containing geographic links to bordering nations. I would recommend moving this template to the bottom of the 'geography and climate' section, instead of including it as a section with no text. Sections without text are discouraged.

There are no sections on Communications or Transportation, per Wikiproject Countries outline. I would also recommend reordering the sections more in the order found in that guideline -- e.g. Etymology, History, Governance, Geography (flora & fauna, outline template), Economy, Demographics, Culture (include Tourism and Sports here as subsections), Communications, Transportation, Military, Education.

Images: Is the flag image and the coat of arms image actually public domain and GFDL images? I would think that digital version of those images would be owned by the government of Pakistan? Though I think that Wikipedia can still legitimately use them -- the copyright tags may not be correct.

File:Mainboulevard1cg lahore.jpeg -- This image is currently tagged with a deletion nomination since November 2009. Possibly copyright dispute.

File:Malam Jabba P1010215.jpg -- Not a major issue, but there is a tag on this image that it has been moved to the Wikimedia Commons, so the article should probably use that image instead. WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ur review, ur suggestions were realy helpful, i hv worked on almost half of them and will work on rest of them shortly.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few glaring issues in the Economy section alone. Please note that there cannot be any copy-paste jobs in the article. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore the information should be factual and up-to-date. Also, I believe that given the magnitude and the implications of the War in North-West Pakistan, it should be covered in a bit more detail rather than a brief mention of it. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

due to my busy schedule these days (new job, new office etc ..) i am hardly available on wikipedia, on the coming weekend i will try resolving all the issues by following the suggestions given by above Users, if i failed this time, then i will withdraw the GA nomination voluntarily and will nominate it again once i am done improving it as per above given suggestions.

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The weekend's past and some work's been done, but doesn't seem like you've made any edits to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had updated the Economy section but it seems that the changes made by me and others were reverted. As of now, much of the first para of the Economy section is a copy-paste job from the website of Trade Development Authority of Pakistan. Not only is this a direct copyvio but the information is also outdated (the data on that webpage has not been updated after 2006). I'm sorry but the article is in pathetic condition and looking at the pace of improvement, it is going to take months before the article is any good. So, Strong Oppose. --Nosedown (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a contributor you cannot be a reviewer per GA Review guidelines. And WP:GA does not operate on a system of "support" and "oppose" votes, so that comment does not matter. However, it has been well over one month since the review was posted, and editors still have not addressed the concerns raised in this review. I am therefore going to remove the listing of this article from WP:GAN; it can be renominated there once it meets all six good article criteria and the concerns raised here have been addressed. WTF? (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]