The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 25 March 2012 [1].
Pakistan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and all the required changes have been made to the article. The article is in good shape and well sourced. It has under gone a through overhaul in addition to the peer review. lTopGunl ( talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - there's currently an NPOV tag on the article that should be addressed before this review goes too much further. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: is this FAC going slow or this much time is normal before actual evaluation starts? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I was asked by TopGun to comment on this article. I probably won't provide a full review, but I'd like to offer the following comments on the basis of sections of the article I've selected more or less at random. I think that they indicate that the article is under-developed for FA status, so I'm leaning oppose. I'm shifting to full oppose due to serious problems with references not supporting the text as described below.
Now how exactly is the article's wording "Pakistan economic growth since its inception has been varied. Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery." misinterpreting the source?
Yes the source goes on to further explain that there are other reasons behind such variable rate as well. But the fact remains. I've further tweaked the lines to include that the foundation for sustainable and equitable growth was not formed during that time. I hope its clearer now, and more matching the source. September88 ( talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Its almost similar because it explains some numbers, decades etc which can hardly to altered to avoid copy right or it'll not match the source; still it wasn't exactly similar to have copyright to have a banner it was explaining some stats not the countries views to be labeled on an agenda. Since I've removed the lines and source anyway debate is unnecessary.
September88 (
talk)
14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Further comments
""This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan")"
Two sources have been given for this statement which both explains the three factors which were highlight of that period. Yes the corruption problem remains but the point is no other government has the problem as a highlight as the governments during 1990-1999.
Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan, clearly says that the 1990's-1999 government were dissolved on misgovernence or corruption charges. That the succeeding government actually managed to reduce the corruption, and cases were filed against the 1990s governments on corruption charges. Yes it says that the corruption indicators have fell again, which pertains to current government, as their tenure is still remaining, expanding their highlights comes in recentism. If the whole report is read its obvious that the 1990s period has been most involved in corruption.
The second source which I've linked now, explains the economy of country since its inception and apart from general overview, the 1990s is the only period about which corruption charges have been specifically mentioned which indicates again that the highlight of those government was corruption. SO I don't see how the sources aren't matching with text here. 2ndly if there is still an issue I can refernce links which tells that Pakistan ranked 2nd, 5th, and 11th, in annual reports on the most corrupt countries in the world between 1996 and 1998, and that ranking has not fell so sharply in other decades. September88 ( talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
JCAla ( talk) 17:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment "Sepoy Mutiny, was the region's last major armed struggle against the British Raj" First, the sentence is probably technically wrong, as British Raj started after the Sepoy Mutiny. Second, if this was the last, which was the first? Did any other armed struggles occur before this? I mean Sepoy Mutiny is sometimes dubbed as first war of independence. Is it really the last? Are you emphasizing "major armed struggle"? What is the scale of "major" in that case? Is the "major" only in terms of number of people died, or, does it also involve the political/historical significance? If the number of casualties is not the only measure of "major"ness, then there were other armed revolts or acts. So, wordings may need to be modified here.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of a Muslim majority and geography, the same principles that were applied for the creation of the two independent states. First, the source does not mention "Geography" as the basis of Pakistan's claim over Kashmir. Second, what makes this source ("Zakat Foundation of America, a Muslim charity...") a reliable source?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Observation. Despite the fifth-most spoken language among six main languages in the country (source: Pakistan census), Urdu is the national language of the country. Is there any reason behind it? If thre is, it may be interesting to mention. (not a requirement for FA, just an incidental observation).-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment As of this version, the article still says The transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP despite being pointed out in FAC that it is transport "sector" not infrastructure.
Also, The road infrastructure is better than the ones of India and China... The source (a draft from planning commission of Pakistan government) does not tell that road infrastructure is better than China.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment.
In the source (page 9, as mentioned in the reference) provided, I did not find anything that suggests "Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy". If you have used some sentences from the source to frame these two sentences in the article, please quote from the source (maybe quote within citation, not in the body of the article).
Also, "For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan", completely
OR (on the basis of source provided). The source does not say anything about Pakistan's national policy either.
*In modern time, the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy, Ishfaq Ahmad, and Riazudding played a crucial development in particle and theoretical physics.
What is "modern time"?
*Pakistan also produced the world class mathematicians such as Asghar Qadir and Raziuddin Siddiqui where their research played a crucial advancement in mathematical physics.
Weasel word (world class); also wrong grammar.
* Munir Ahmad Rashid became the first Pakistani mathematician to provide the another theoretical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 2008
Source does not verify this information. Source is just a schedule of this person's speech on Fermat's last theorem, during a conference in Dreamland Hotel of Islamabad.
Citations needed for both sentences. Wrong grammar in the second sentence. Why does it say "He was preceeded by..?" Salimuzzaman was preceded by the two other scientists? Preceded in what?--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
*Each and every year, scientists from all over the world are invited by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences and the Pakistan Government to participate in International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics, one of the largest seminar in Physics and Mathematics
The source provided (an address by the prime minister) does not support the claims "scientists from all over the world", and "one of the largest seminar" (bye the way, one of the largest of where? of Pakistan? of world?).
Does not seem to be a notable person. Better source required, not just his lab page from the university.
*In 1998, due to amid domestic and international pressure, Pakistan became first Muslim majority and seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapons
First, grammar wrong. Second, Pakistan had "international" pressure to develop nuclear weapon? Some other country was telling Pakistan to build it?--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. Not ready to be FA yet. Rationale as follows:
Criteria 1a. The prose is below standard for FA. I have given a few examples of grammar weakness, weasel words etc in my comments above.
1b. I am not sure about comprehensiveness as several discussions are going on (in article talk page or elsewhere) on inclusion of different topics, such as Balochistan insurgency, Taliban etc.
1c. Definitely NOT well-researched, and this is a major point of oppose. As User:Nick-D has pointed out above, the article indeed had opposite to what was stated in the source. Sometimes, the source does not mention what is stated in the article. This has led to decreased credibility of the article. Additionally, there is multiple reliable source issue.
1d. Neutrality -- I am not sure, as discussions on inclusion of different topics are ongoing.
1e. Stability -- yet not very stable.
Criteria 2. Does not follow WP:MoS properly. Some instances of year ranges not using mdash (inflation rate for the fiscal year 2010-11...) Single page reference sometimes uses "pp.". The article uses random capitalisation in words inside citations. For example, a randomly-chosen citation says, "Obituary: Munir Khan Dies; Developed Pakistan Bomb Project." This should be "Obituary: Munir Khan dies; developed Pakistan bomb project."
Another random example from within the text : For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan. Why the "s" of Scientific is in capital. Similar example are there in the part of the article that I read.
Best of luck. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Who is adding {{ done}} templates? Please remove them. See WP:FAC instructions: they create errors in the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Johnbod ( talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 25 March 2012 [1].
Pakistan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and all the required changes have been made to the article. The article is in good shape and well sourced. It has under gone a through overhaul in addition to the peer review. lTopGunl ( talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - there's currently an NPOV tag on the article that should be addressed before this review goes too much further. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: is this FAC going slow or this much time is normal before actual evaluation starts? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I was asked by TopGun to comment on this article. I probably won't provide a full review, but I'd like to offer the following comments on the basis of sections of the article I've selected more or less at random. I think that they indicate that the article is under-developed for FA status, so I'm leaning oppose. I'm shifting to full oppose due to serious problems with references not supporting the text as described below.
Now how exactly is the article's wording "Pakistan economic growth since its inception has been varied. Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery." misinterpreting the source?
Yes the source goes on to further explain that there are other reasons behind such variable rate as well. But the fact remains. I've further tweaked the lines to include that the foundation for sustainable and equitable growth was not formed during that time. I hope its clearer now, and more matching the source. September88 ( talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Its almost similar because it explains some numbers, decades etc which can hardly to altered to avoid copy right or it'll not match the source; still it wasn't exactly similar to have copyright to have a banner it was explaining some stats not the countries views to be labeled on an agenda. Since I've removed the lines and source anyway debate is unnecessary.
September88 (
talk)
14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Further comments
""This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan")"
Two sources have been given for this statement which both explains the three factors which were highlight of that period. Yes the corruption problem remains but the point is no other government has the problem as a highlight as the governments during 1990-1999.
Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan, clearly says that the 1990's-1999 government were dissolved on misgovernence or corruption charges. That the succeeding government actually managed to reduce the corruption, and cases were filed against the 1990s governments on corruption charges. Yes it says that the corruption indicators have fell again, which pertains to current government, as their tenure is still remaining, expanding their highlights comes in recentism. If the whole report is read its obvious that the 1990s period has been most involved in corruption.
The second source which I've linked now, explains the economy of country since its inception and apart from general overview, the 1990s is the only period about which corruption charges have been specifically mentioned which indicates again that the highlight of those government was corruption. SO I don't see how the sources aren't matching with text here. 2ndly if there is still an issue I can refernce links which tells that Pakistan ranked 2nd, 5th, and 11th, in annual reports on the most corrupt countries in the world between 1996 and 1998, and that ranking has not fell so sharply in other decades. September88 ( talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
JCAla ( talk) 17:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment "Sepoy Mutiny, was the region's last major armed struggle against the British Raj" First, the sentence is probably technically wrong, as British Raj started after the Sepoy Mutiny. Second, if this was the last, which was the first? Did any other armed struggles occur before this? I mean Sepoy Mutiny is sometimes dubbed as first war of independence. Is it really the last? Are you emphasizing "major armed struggle"? What is the scale of "major" in that case? Is the "major" only in terms of number of people died, or, does it also involve the political/historical significance? If the number of casualties is not the only measure of "major"ness, then there were other armed revolts or acts. So, wordings may need to be modified here.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of a Muslim majority and geography, the same principles that were applied for the creation of the two independent states. First, the source does not mention "Geography" as the basis of Pakistan's claim over Kashmir. Second, what makes this source ("Zakat Foundation of America, a Muslim charity...") a reliable source?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Observation. Despite the fifth-most spoken language among six main languages in the country (source: Pakistan census), Urdu is the national language of the country. Is there any reason behind it? If thre is, it may be interesting to mention. (not a requirement for FA, just an incidental observation).-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment As of this version, the article still says The transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP despite being pointed out in FAC that it is transport "sector" not infrastructure.
Also, The road infrastructure is better than the ones of India and China... The source (a draft from planning commission of Pakistan government) does not tell that road infrastructure is better than China.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment.
In the source (page 9, as mentioned in the reference) provided, I did not find anything that suggests "Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy". If you have used some sentences from the source to frame these two sentences in the article, please quote from the source (maybe quote within citation, not in the body of the article).
Also, "For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan", completely
OR (on the basis of source provided). The source does not say anything about Pakistan's national policy either.
*In modern time, the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy, Ishfaq Ahmad, and Riazudding played a crucial development in particle and theoretical physics.
What is "modern time"?
*Pakistan also produced the world class mathematicians such as Asghar Qadir and Raziuddin Siddiqui where their research played a crucial advancement in mathematical physics.
Weasel word (world class); also wrong grammar.
* Munir Ahmad Rashid became the first Pakistani mathematician to provide the another theoretical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 2008
Source does not verify this information. Source is just a schedule of this person's speech on Fermat's last theorem, during a conference in Dreamland Hotel of Islamabad.
Citations needed for both sentences. Wrong grammar in the second sentence. Why does it say "He was preceeded by..?" Salimuzzaman was preceded by the two other scientists? Preceded in what?--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
*Each and every year, scientists from all over the world are invited by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences and the Pakistan Government to participate in International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics, one of the largest seminar in Physics and Mathematics
The source provided (an address by the prime minister) does not support the claims "scientists from all over the world", and "one of the largest seminar" (bye the way, one of the largest of where? of Pakistan? of world?).
Does not seem to be a notable person. Better source required, not just his lab page from the university.
*In 1998, due to amid domestic and international pressure, Pakistan became first Muslim majority and seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapons
First, grammar wrong. Second, Pakistan had "international" pressure to develop nuclear weapon? Some other country was telling Pakistan to build it?--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. Not ready to be FA yet. Rationale as follows:
Criteria 1a. The prose is below standard for FA. I have given a few examples of grammar weakness, weasel words etc in my comments above.
1b. I am not sure about comprehensiveness as several discussions are going on (in article talk page or elsewhere) on inclusion of different topics, such as Balochistan insurgency, Taliban etc.
1c. Definitely NOT well-researched, and this is a major point of oppose. As User:Nick-D has pointed out above, the article indeed had opposite to what was stated in the source. Sometimes, the source does not mention what is stated in the article. This has led to decreased credibility of the article. Additionally, there is multiple reliable source issue.
1d. Neutrality -- I am not sure, as discussions on inclusion of different topics are ongoing.
1e. Stability -- yet not very stable.
Criteria 2. Does not follow WP:MoS properly. Some instances of year ranges not using mdash (inflation rate for the fiscal year 2010-11...) Single page reference sometimes uses "pp.". The article uses random capitalisation in words inside citations. For example, a randomly-chosen citation says, "Obituary: Munir Khan Dies; Developed Pakistan Bomb Project." This should be "Obituary: Munir Khan dies; developed Pakistan bomb project."
Another random example from within the text : For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan. Why the "s" of Scientific is in capital. Similar example are there in the part of the article that I read.
Best of luck. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Who is adding {{ done}} templates? Please remove them. See WP:FAC instructions: they create errors in the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Johnbod ( talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply