Template:Did you know nominations/Long March (Pakistan)
The following is an archived discussion of Long March (Pakistan)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
Long March (Pakistan)
[edit]- ... that the government of Pakistan signed the Islamabad Long March Declaration on 17 January, 2013?
- Reviewed: The Girl (2012 HBO film)
Created by Lihaas (talk). Self nom at 06:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note- its on ITNC, but im pretty suer it wont get on since it hasnt had a comment yet. If it does ill withdraw this.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
QPQ fine, article eligible (created Jan 15, nom Jan 19). The prose is of acceptable quality but would benefit from a specialist copyedit. However, I do have some concerns. Firstly, the spelling of M(u/o)hammed is inconsistent between the hook and the article. Secondly, the article does not actually say that Tahir-ul-Qadri signed the declaration, only that the government did. Thirdly, the hook is rather boring and could more usefully pick up on some other fact relevant to the declaration. I look forward to rereviewing the article shortly (do feel free to talkback me). Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the government of Pakistan signed the Long March Declaration on 17 January 2013, allowing Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri to help decide upon a caretaker Prime Minister?
- Also, upon rereading the prose I think it does need some work, so I've requested a check for the WP:GOCE, though we'll have to see if that review is forthcoming. I will check for sourcing shortly before giving you the tick. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- All sourced added as i did the additions and took from the source.
- Not sure what copy edit is needed. Can yuo pt out instances so i can do it?Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing really needs a copyedit; it's nothing personal, it's just that it comes across as awkward to me (as a native English speaker).
- Having looked at the sourcing, though, I have some concerns there. For example, paragraph 2 of Reactions (beginning with "Government of Punjab Minister for Law Rana Sanaullah said that people..."), including a direct quotation, is cited to reference 4, but that source does not mention Rana Sanaullah, nor does it post-date the march. Is this an isolated case, or will I find that ll the way through? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, misplaced ref when tagging each para.
- Not sure what i can do as i have no instancs of whats wong with the grammar/flow. If you can point some out I can re-read looking for such.Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would appear that a copyedit has been done by GOCE. There is one "citation needed" template in the article that needs to be addressed, after which the article will be ready for a new review. (Articles nominated for DYK need to have at least one inline source citation per paragraph in the body of the article.) Please post here when the citation has been supplied, so we can get this moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've checked the paragraph for which citation was requested, the statements referred to are contained in the "The News" article referenced to the paragraph below (currently no.7 on the reflist), so I've added an extra inline citation to that source, which appears to be a respected Pakistan news publication. Would seem that the paragraph break got in the way of a continuous reference. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have conducted a few minor copy-edits, but on the whole the article now looks good to go. The hook is referenced inline, and the length and date both check out fine. Checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing only reveal attributed direct quotations, or phrasing that can not be altered, so nothing of any concern. Harrias talk 16:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
