Nominator(s): ZiaKhan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I worked on the list for more than 2 months and it also went through a PR. This is my first nomination at this topic, I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. Comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated, as always. Thanks, ZiaKhan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from --Tomcat(7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to delink "Post Abolished" in the "Timeline" section? Or simply remove "Post Abolish" and just leave a black line (as you have the key describing what it means)
Is it possible to cut File:Mujib-Suhra.gif, to avoid the noting who is who? Also that picture could be bigger.
You could include the original title of non-English sources.
No, I would prefer this one, for consistency.
Ref 6, should be "Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh" according to Gbooks
Ref 7, should be "Pakistan: Zia and After". There may be more such mistakes.--Tomcat(7) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Done and thanks for the comments. ZiaKhan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against WP:ACCESS, though it is difficult as you did not use colour codes. The symbols must be also accessible. Regards.--Tomcat(7) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the references, decapitalised the words, the colours I used are actually party colours and the symbols are now accessable. ZiaKhan 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Personally, I'm not liking the mix of colours and symbols. I find them somewhat overused as a result of the high amount of parties involved. Anyways, per my principle of how lists always need a smile, I won't argue against it. Good job. — ΛΧΣ21 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you and happy new year. ZiaKhan 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – Prose in the lead isn't too bad, but the notes in the table need a lot of work, mainly to reduce overcapitalization. There are also some reference formatting issues that should have been caught earlier. The good news is that the issues shouldn't be hard to fix, for the most part.
"Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have elected by the National Assembly". Needs "been" after "have".
This should be "been", not "baen" as the article has now.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In Mazari's note, the last word should also be decapitalized.
Also, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized in Khalid's note.
Nawaz Sharif: "Sharif was re-elected as Prime Minister the exclusive mandate from all over the Pakistan...". Needs a re-write. I'd tell you how, but am not entirely sure what the meaning is. Was it that he had a mandate from Pakistanis?
His party won 137 seats out of 207. ZiaKhan 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Drop "the" from "from all over the Pakistan" and it should be workable now.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, "Government" again needs de-capitalization in this note.
"and the Martial law was imposed in the entire country." First "the" isn't needed and can be removed without affecting meaning or ruining the grammar. I actually think this is grammatically better without the first "the".
Shaukat Aziz: "who left seat after completion of parliamentary term." Needs "the" before "seat".
Yousaf Raza Gillani: "Gillani was elected after in March 2008 after the elections." There's an excess "after", but I'm curious as to how he could be elected after elections. Wouldn't he have been elected in the elections?
In ref 30, instead of having "pp. 1657 onwards", it would be better to just give a page range, even if it's a large one. Also, there is a double period that just having a regular range would fix.
The ISBN isn't showing up as a link in ref 40.
A page number would be nice for ref 48, in case the book ever gets pulled from Google Books. I know the page numbers that are avaliable for previewing can change over time.
Still needs a page number, if possible.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, ZiaKhan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Your concerns have been resolved. Of course, storyof pakistan.com is a reliable cite , thanks for the comments. ZiaKhan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. In what do you say it's reliable? is it a govt. published source or a site run by some reputed news agencies. —Vensatry(Ping me) 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a govt cite which publishes the political history of Pakistan. ZiaKhan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely not a Govt-owned website. The domain should be ".pk" if it's a site maintained by the Pak Govt. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a govt cite or mainained by the govt, I don't know, I only know that this is reliable one. Look at the lis at ru:Wikipedia and why do you think that this is unreliable? ZiaKhan 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not really up to the reviewer to prove a source unreliable, more it's up to you to prove it is reliable. And whatever goes on at Russian Wikipedia is really irrelevant to our own quality standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
How can I prove that it is reliable or not? I can only say that it is Pakistani political website. ZiaKhan 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Than its reliability is proved, have a look here and here. ZiaKhan 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘The link you provided only shows the list of refs. they have used for content making. WP:RSN might be the best place to ask. —Vensatry(Ping me) 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The links I provided and this one say exactly what reliable sources (The piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work.) is! So, I don't think I should ask at WP:RSN. ZiaKhan 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reliability of the work itself or the creators. None of them look like professional editors. Looks like a self-publishing source. —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." This is the definition of a source, and what is a self-publishing source?ZiaKhan 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". I hope this'll be sufficient to convince you! ZiaKhan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to support or oppose the candidate since I don't have enough time to review the prose and table. As for the references, I'm fully satisfied with the work. —Vensatry(Ping me) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"as a Prime Minister"
"He, during his two terms, remained in the office for the longest period." Think this sentence could be more specific and worded better, would say how long he was in office
"Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947 ," no space between 1947 and comma
"on Kashmir conflict" the after on
"He made the constitution of Pakistan..." Did he make it himself? I doubt this, needs rewording for accuracy
Comment please consider uploaded new, cropped versions of the photographs so that they can be more visible. Also, that timeline in the end is ghastly and serves absolutely no purpose; it does not aid in visualising the tenures (if that were indeed the purpose). Please remove it.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have their free images. You can add if you have, timeline section removed. Thanks, ZiaKhan 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the removal, but it appears another user has re-added the timeline.
If other users re-add this than there shouldn't be a problem. Cropped some images, BTW. ZiaKhan 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - alright, now that the above concerns have been dealt with, I'm fine in supporting this list. There were some minor issues with dates in a few references which I've taken care of myself. Consider archiving your online sources with web.archive.org or webcitation.org; while optional, it ensures that if the websites ever go down or remove the information you're citing, your references won't die with them. --PresN 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.