Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 00:53, 22 April 2009 [1].

Pakistan

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
WikiProjects notified.

Article fails several criteria.

  • 1c) Large parts of the article are unsourced, sources are not formatted.
  • 2a) lead doesn't summarise article properly, skewed towards the international memberships
  • 2b/d) Bias through lack of negative information - large % of madrasa education, Islamic fundamentalism, honour killings, tribalism, sectarianism between Sunni/Shia, religious restrictions against non-Muslims, sponsoring terrorism. Society and culture section is horrendously hagiographic especially with respect to religious diversity and tolerance

Article does not speak of terrorism activities within Pakistan, suggestions from users on the talk page pointing to this very deficiency are for some reason conveniently ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozdeh (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So all Pakistan is about is terrorism and violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.134.97 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all ... but a significant and an increasingly expanding chunk of it is ...--Mozdeh (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say fail for the following reasons, which might be fixed. So, perhaps just take them as an encouragement. It's not a stron fail from my side:

  • Em-dashes without space according to Wikipedia MOS
Can't find any. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • OK, there is a host of national symbols (e.g., national juice :-), if that is all correct than it should be mentioned as is done. However, further down I read that "Muhammad Iqbal, [is] the national poet of Pakistan". This certainly needs to be rewritten.
fixed. Didn't need the table and it was in wrong section. Added more info to national poet. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • It's said that Urdu is the national language while English is the official language. This is awkward. If correct, it and needs to be explained further and sourced. (Or does national mean something like the sugar cane juice here).
fixed. I linked the individual words instead of telling the difference between the two there. Looked ahead, and if it was still confusing, I added more info. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • Same token. Urdu is the national language, but only native to 7.6%. There could be some elaboration about this. How many percent speak it as a second language. The same info could be given for English.
fixed. Different ethnic languages are spoken. Clarified this in article.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • Flora and Fauna: The last line is completely formatted bold. Is that because (once again) it is about national symbols (i.e., national animal and national bird). This formatting is not appropriate. BTW, isn't a bird an animal?
fixed. Someone already removed the bold font, prob vandalism. Yes, a bird is an animal but then whats use of the National Birds list if the logical applies ;) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • Between the sections Economy and Society and culture there is an ugly picture pile up. The layout may be enhanced.
Fixed. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • Further reading uses underlining. This is at least uncommon. Perhaps it is also against Wikipedia MOS.
Fixed. Someone already took care of it.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
  • Use the concept of subsections please.
Fixed. Yeah, it definitely needed subsections. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)

Tomeasy T C 07:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold. Work in progress. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fail. Work in progress is exactly not happening. See my list above. Many of these issues are so easy to address, but they haven't. Since this article has been nominated for re-assessment no substantial edits have been made. Tomeasy T C 07:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for the weekend to start work. It would be nice if you didn't rush to judgment, instead of bluntly attacking the progress. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.The issues you've stated have been taken care of.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Fixed Thanks, I removed the images, will add good ones. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least five dead external links; these should ideally be replaced with good ones. The references are not uniformally formatted; while this is a very minor point, I find that you can identify unreliable sources or broken links, which can then be removed, by going through the references carefully and editing them to a uniform format. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed The dead links are fixed. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tourism section needs some serious copy-editing. It sounds like a travel agents brochure with pretty bad English. More material should included that reflects present condition, in general, of the industy. Sumanch (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit and added more sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Economy section needs proper citation. Also, para 1 talks about strong economy and rapid economic growth in present tense; para 2 states Pakistan requested $100 B aid to avoid bankruptcy. These statements are inconsistant. Sumanch (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever
I have tried to address the concerns of several editors however my edits have been reverted several times. I am one person and even though I have tried getting help, I cannot fix this article on my own. So whatever. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has displaying image of Pakistan map before 1971. showing Indian held Kashmir as India's part. Which is not true as Kashmir is a disputed territory. So this image should be changed or edited. see for reference RESOLUTION 47 (1948) ON THE INDIA-PAKISTAN QUESTION SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR BELGIUM, CANADA, CHINA, COLUMBIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 286TH MEETING HELD ON 21 APRIL, 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/726, DATED THE 21ST APRIL, 1948). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattar82 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources, lead, NPOV and MoS. Joelito (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues arising with the NPOV or MoS. If there are specifics are given, then I shall deal with them. The current terrorist events itself is against MOS because they are recent. I am currently working on the lead and if some ideas are provided then it would be great. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics please? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Vote stacking doesn't help an article and is frowned upon, Nishkid64. I do hope your personal bias isn't effecting your judgment. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the FA criteria instead of asking editors to point out the perfectly visible flaws with the article. What happened to a little AGF? I shouldn't expect baseless accusations of vote stacking or biases from anyone, especially from an experience editor. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you do realize the purpose of this review is to find the flaws in the article? How are they baseless, when you just come in and repeat a previous comment without specifically pointing out the issues with the article? And it seems you are still refusing to do so. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
I quite clearly underlined the flaws with this article. It's not my fault if you didn't bother spending 5 minutes going through the article to notice how there are entire paragraphs (e.g. second paragraph of "Government and politics", second paragraph of "Geography and climate", etc.) or at least a few sentences that are not associated with any reference. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Refrain from using personal attacks, as an admin you should know this. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't made any personal attacks, only you have. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refrain from going off topic. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Below.
Thanks for adding the facts tags. Really helps the article which is the purpose of this debate unlike other editors who don't realize this. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Some of the sources are outdated and therefore, the article fails to give an accurate picture in some cases. For example, for the sentence Pakistan is a rapidly developing country, the sources given date back to Jan 2007, September 2007 and June 2006. Things have changed a lot since then and apart from the last source, none of the sources meet WP:Reliability. Also, the history section needs a couple of sentences more to mention the recent insurgencies in FATA, NWFP and Swat Valley. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a lot of large claims. Pakistan is still a rapidly developing country unless you show me a source that says so otherwise, I will not add a recent event. I updated some of the figures to show an accurate picture. Adding recent events in such a board topic as this article is against MOS. If you want information on them go look at their respective articles. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia needs to be as subjective as possible. Rapid is a relative, vague term and words such as this is something which an encyclopedia definitely can do without. Question remains, why not just state the latest growth figures instead of using terms like rapid? Besides, many economists will agree that the projected 2.5% economic growth rate is not particularly rapid. And that projection was an optimistic one. USA Today article: Pakistan's economy is slowing dramatically — from growth of 6% or more in recent years to just 0.6% in 2008 and a projected 2.4% in 2009, according to HSBC bank. I'm sorry but if this article needs to retain its FA status, it has to be more subjective and accurate.
Regarding the current events argument, the government of Pakistan losing control over 5,337 km² of land in Swat needs to be mentioned in the main article. If not that, the imposition of Sharia law in the valley deserves to be mentioned. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets put everything you say into the article. Putting recent events in this article is against MOS. Feel free to read that. Putting "projected" figures into this article is also against MOS. And since when did Swat become independent? Did they declare Independence? And for the last time putting recent events is against MOS. Just as easily it was to impose Sharia, it can be undone the next day. However, I shall try to address the "rapid" concerns. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another fascinating observation - Read this sentence from the article:
GDP growth was steady during the mid 2000s at a rate of 7%[74][75]; however, slowed down during the Economic crisis of 2008 to 4.7%. The source given is CIA Factbook which says the figure is a 2008 estimate. From Pakistani government sources, it becomes clear that these figures were based on data before October 2008 (see date of the article). I find it hard to understand how come the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, which started in September 2008, spread all the way from United States to Pakistan within a month and had such a drastic effect? The point is, the economic growth of Pakistan was declining before the onset of the financial crisis. Here is a article mentioning Pakistan's economic woes published in March 2008, much before the financial crisis caught steam [2]. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading the statement in a wrong manner. :::GDP growth was steady during the mid 2000s at a rate of 7%[74][75]; however, slowed down DURING the Economic crisis of 2008 to 4.7%. It wasn't the cause of the economic slowdown. Editors are still arguing what year the crises started. And again this is what happens when you put in recent events. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I never said Swat achieved independence. According to the deal, Pakistani government has practically given militant forces the right to maintain Sharia law in the region. I was suggesting a brief mention of the deal but on second thoughts, I'm willing to rest my case. Regarding the economy section, if you would read the concerned sentence again, it gives the impression that the slowdown in the Pakistani economy is directly related to the global economic crisis. However, there were other factors too which adversely affected the economy. I suggest a revision of the wording of the sentence. Since the direct correlation between the global financial crisis and the slowdown in Pakistani economy is not yet established, I suggest that it would appropriate to just mention that there was a slowdown. Besides, the Pakistani slowdown began in early 2008 and the severe effects of the global financial crisis were only felt in September 2008. Therefore, the word during is inaccurate and there is no source to back this claim. This is a clear case of original research in my opinion. Lastly, I'm waiting for you to address concerns related to the word rapid. Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like an expert on Pakistan's economy. "Several other factors which adversely affected the economy", really? What are they and do you have sources to back them up? There no original research allowed on Wikipedia and I'm not going to add it based solely on your opinion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the mention of rapid because I couldn't find the proper mention of Pakistan in the source and moved the other statement down. The sources for the later are either two or one year(s) old so I do not think they justify deletion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A) Give me a credible source suggesting that the slowdown in Pakistani economy is only related to the global economic crisis. B) Reasons for Pakistan's economic slowdown: Bad policies and trade deficit, Government fiscal deficit, high inflation, political instability, security risk adversely affecting foreign investment. C) One does not need to be an "expert" to know the real cause of slowdown in Pakistani economy which preceded global economic crisis. Pakistan's fiscal deficit reached US$14 billion in 2008 and its foreign currency reserves were just US$9.4 billion in September 2008. D) If you need more sources, let me know. Fact remains, that I'm the only one here giving a list of information from credible sources. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an appropriate response. Until the concerns mentioned are not resolved, I'm inclined to support the proposal to delist this article. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delist —

  • 2a) lead doesn't summarise article properly, skewed towards the international memberships
This is a persistent problem. It should summarize the whole article and really doesn't need to have references in it if the points are also in the text and referenced there. Everything in the lead should also be in the text; my rule is that every section title should be at least mentioned in some way in the lead. And, yes, it is skewed largely towards the international club memberships.
  • 2b/d) Bias through lack of negative information - large % of madrasa education, Islamic fundamentalism, honour killings, tribalism, sectarianism between Sunni/Shia, religious restrictions against non-Muslims, sponsoring terrorism. Society and culture section is horrendously hagiographic especially with respect to religious diversity and tolerance
In the country Template —
  • Too much clutter
  • Inconsistent data "Land Area" — The link shows Pakistans rank as 36th and area. 796,095km2 in NPOV area and 881,912km2 Pakistani POV. And this data does not match displayed info.
History section clutter — Most of the material is verbatim copy from co. cc/?action=history this website. The section is poorly writen. Inclusion of pseudo-academic terms.
  • Long paras in History section with unsourced claims, one line mention of coups and assasinations. The last para has only one source and states Musharraf was elected President in 2002. This is violetion of NPOV without mentining both sides of the dispute.
  • This section lacks natural flow.
Government and politics — Avoid peacock terms
  • This section starts by stating when the constitution was suspended; Then reminds it is the "most important document" in Pakistan.
Economy —
  • I doubt Pakistani Economic situation has anything to do with 2008 economic crisis. KSE fell from 15000 to below 1000 from Jan 2008 and May 2008 steadily. KSE was shutdown frequently. BBC, Business Week, Fonzation and many more.
Geography — Eurasian landplate is not a proper term

This is what I had time for to go through to include. There are many more. Therefore, delisting is appropriate.Sumanch (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of a well writen articles Bangladesh, Japan. Sumanch (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contd.— In Government and politics section, there is fair amount of info on Pakistani military but the Military section lacks it. I will suggest combining both.

There is an image of Malam Jabba Ski Resort in the Economy section. Malam Jabba Ski Resort was burnt down by the Taliban 2007. So the image does not reflect the text in the section.

The education section contains exactly two sentences on Islamic(madrassa) schools. There is enough evidence to suggest that the madrassa form a parallel education system in rural Pakistan, if not entire Pakistan.

Please verify the authenticy of the Holidays section and provide citation because some people have suggested 1 January is not an official holiday.Sumanch (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment and remarks about the article. First the general comment: I see no action here after March 24. No response to the last opposer's raised issues. No comments in the meantime by Raul's delegates. If there is nobody to work on the article (which is not the best I've ever read, but neither the worse), then this discussion should close, and the article should be delisted.

In case there is somebody to work on Pakistan, these are my remarks (after a quick read):

  1. The lead is overwikified, and the prose is not compelling: "Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and considered a frontline state in the War on Terro." Just an example of mediocre prose.
  2. "Economy" is overlinked; the same citation sometimes used within the same sentence. And the data need some checking so that they are up-to-date. CIA Factbook already provides us with the 2008 economic data.
  3. "Education" is full of stubby paragraphs. And indeed the issue of religious education (maybe the issue of religious law now applied in near-Afghanistan areas also) should be properly treated.

I could write more, but is there anybody working on the article or, at least, anybody watching the course of this FAR?--Yannismarou (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am but since I am the nominator I can't close it... Joelito usually takes it very slow....My position hasn't changed as far as the POV by omission is concerned, unformatted references etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELIST Article does not even so much as mention the growing militant insurgency in pakistan and the numerous terrorist outfits training camps etc that operate from there.--128.62.162.238 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Pakistan&oldid=1087824609"