Jump to content

Talk:Faisalabad/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Major changes to the article

Hi, Willard84, while add-ons and updates are welcome, major changes to an article that has been promoted to WP:GA should be discussed on the TP first. Before going in and drastically reducing the leads of any article, please see WP:Lead because it appears you may not quite understand why certain things must be included in the lead, and then added again with more detail in the body. Also, please present your suggestions on the article TP first, and allow collaborating editors to discuss and provide their input. Thank you in advance....--Atsme📞📧 03:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

AzΩ== Lead paragraph cleanup ==

The lead paragraph is completely jumbled and has contradictory information. I cleaned it up, but since someone decided to label this a "good article," it was promptly reverted back to the poor written and bad edit by user "Atsme" - with a little blurb as to how I might not understand the reason why some info is included.

The section on economy is particularly bad - the size of the economy is listed as two totally different figures of $43 billion and $20.5 billion. It even includes a completely unecessary addition about Pakistan's economy as a whole being 20% reliant upon agriculture. This isn't an article on Pakistan, or the Pakistani economy, and so info about the country as a whole shouldnt be included in an article about a city.

Further, the way the intro is worded makes it seem as though Faisalabad contributes 20% of Pakistan's economy too. This is completely wrong, and is based on a confusion between GDP (nominal) and GDP (PPP). Faisalabad's economy is $43b PPP, which is approximately 20% of Pakistan's nominal GDP. But they are totally different numbers that can't be compared side by side as was erronously done in the intro section. Faisalabad's $43billion economy (PPP), can only be compared to Pakistan's PPP economy of $1.060 trillion - clearly showing that Faisalabad's economy is nowhere near 20% of Pakistan's as a whole.

Also, the lead should only include the most important facts/summary about the city. Also, the paragraphs need to be harmonized so they dont sound as though they are written by several authors. I'm going to trim out extraneous info about Pakistan's national economy, and remove contradictory information regarding GDP size.

Remember, more words dont necessarily make an article better, especially when we're preserving incorrect facts and figures simply because an article has been marked "good" at some point. Does anyone object?Willard84 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the information is sourced. Did you read WP:LEAD per my suggestion? Regarding your concern over the economic figures, one is the GDP (PPP) for 2013, and the other is the AVERAGE GDP as stated in the cited sources. One of the cited sources - the Punjab Board of Investment & Trade, clearly states: Its GDP (PPP) in 2013 was $43 billion. It contributes over 20 percent of the national GDP, with an average annual GDP of $20.5 billion. The city is main center of the textile industry, accounting for more than half of Pakistan’s total textile shipments. I added (PPP) for clarification. Constructive editing to improve the article is certainly welcome - a simple addition of (PPP) in the sentence was all that was necessary. Belittling the editors who collaborated and helped get this article promoted to GA status is not conducive to the kind of collaboration we consider acceptable, rather it's considered WP:PA. Comment on content, not the editors. Furthermore, it is customary practice to first discuss major changes to any GA on the article TP. As for your suggestion to have you rewrite the article, I oppose such an undertaking, and suggest that you make a list of suggested changes for discussion here on the TP. Atsme📞📧 12:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No one suggested re-writing the article - im only referring to the lead paragraphs.
  • Your sourced information is incorrect. (See below - the sources youve given are likely mirrored from this wikipedia page, and neither are a reliable source. Mirrors dont count as good sources. One of your sources is a two page flyer posted by a Pakistani student group at a small Australian university ) Look for example at this:
Faisalabad's GDP (PPP) in 2013 was $43 billion (USD)d,[9] approximately 20% of Pakistan's annual GDP of which 21% comes from agriculture.[10][11][12] The annual average GDP of Faisalabad is $20.5 billion; agriculture and industry remains its hallmark.
Here you've reinstated a false comparison. $43 billion is NOT 20% of the Pakistan's GDP. Your argument implies that therefore Pakistan's total PPP economy is sized at around $200 billion, which is complete nonsense, since you say $43 billion is about 20% of the Pakistani economy. The PPP economy of Faisalabad is $43B, and the PPP economy of Pakistan is actually around $1 trillion - look at Pakistan page infobox to see for yourself. The NOMINAL gdp of Pakistan is around $300 billion, which is where the comparison you've provided gets flawed. Someone compared Faisalabad's PPP GDP to Pakistan's NOMINAL GDP, and *still* came up with the wrong percentage (43 is not 20% of 300).
Simply adding a "PPP" to the sentence does NOT make this comparison correct, and this isn't to belittle you, its to re-state a fact which I've already made which you didn't really address- so don't take this personally. It is obvious that a single city of about 8 million people does not contribute 20% of the economy of a country of 200,000,000 people, unless Faisalabad is a super wealthy city, which it is not. Even New York City does not account for 20% of the US economy. Even Karachi, a city of almost 20,000,000 doesn't contribute 20% of Pakistan's economy despite being the financial center of Pakistan with many major industries. Faisalabad is not wealthier than Karachi, and so it is impossible for Faisalabad to be equivalent to 20% of Pakistan's economy.
And yes, the source is a problem if it says that Faisalabad's economy is both $43billion and $20.5 billion. This doesn't even make sense. Is it $43 billion PPP and $20.5 bilion nominal? Either way, it does not add up to 20% of the Pakistani economy. So the source you've provided is confusing. An extraordinary statistic such as this city contributing a full 20% to Pakistan's economy requires extraordinary proof. Adding the word "average" doesn't make a false claim anymore accurate.
  • And secondly, you don't address the extraneous information that 21% of Pakistan's economy is derived from agriculture. Is this a page on Faisalabad, or the Pakistani economy?? There is no good reason to keep extraneous information on an article on Faisalabad, much less reason to include extraneous info in the lead paragraph.
  • Thirdly, can you explain why we need a long list of industries in the lead which are already in the economy section? Because you've reinstated cotton, wheat, sugarcane, vegetables and fruits. The city is an industrial centre with major railway repair yards, engineering works, and mills that process sugar, flour, and oil seed. Faisalabad is a major producer of superphosphates, cotton and silk textiles, hosiery, dyes, industrial chemicals, beverages, clothing, pulp and paper, printing, agricultural equipment, and ghee (clarified butter) as part of the lead, when a long trail of words like this is better in the Economy section. Do you really need 24 sectors listed in the intro? I think not.
*Fourthly, why did you re-instate The Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry monitors industrial activity in the city and reports their findings to the Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry and provincial government into the lead paragraph? Are the bureaucratic workings of the Chamber of Commerce so important that it should be in the lead? Or is it not more important to discuss a relatively mundane topic like Chamber of Commerce in the economy section, or on its own page? Is it more important to list mundane facts like this, rather than my much more useful fact that this city contributes half of Pakistan's textile exports (textiles being Pakistan's main export), which you deleted? This sentence you brought back would be perfectly acceptable in the lead paragraph for F'bad's chamber of commerce own page, but this isn't a page about that chamber of commerce.
Lets not be overzealous in maintaining bad lead paragraphs, especially when the information presented is so wrong. This lead paragraph needs major work, and you're reverting a better lead to a much poorer and inaccurate lead paragraph.
Willard84 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


BTW, the info you provided in April to support your "Faisalabad is 20% of Pakistan's economy" is very likely plagiarized (or mirrored, and thus a poor source) from here.
Note the Wikipedia page:
It has been referred to as the "Manchester of Pakistan".[7][8] Faisalabad's GDP (PPP) in 2013 was $43 billion (USD),[9] approximately 20% of Pakistan's annual GDP of which 21% comes from agriculture.[10][11][12] The annual average GDP of Faisalabad is $20.5 billion; agriculture and industry remains its hallmark.[13][5]:41
The surrounding countryside, irrigated by the lower Chenab River, produces cotton, wheat, sugarcane, vegetables and fruits. The city is an industrial centre with major railway repair yards, engineering works, and mills that process sugar, flour, and oil seed. Faisalabad is a major producer of superphosphates, cotton and silk textiles, hosiery, dyes, industrial chemicals, beverages, clothing, pulp and paper, printing, agricultural equipment, and ghee (clarified butter). The Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry monitors industrial activity in the city and reports their findings to the Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry and provincial government. The city has a major dry port and international airport.
Faisalabad is home to the University of Agriculture, Government College University as well as the Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Divisional Public School Faisalabad and National Textile University.''
AND this from your source that you cited in April 2017 in the "Annual GDP discussion."
It has been referred to as the "Manchester of Pakistan" because it contributes over 20% towards Pakistan's annual GDP. Faisalabad's average annual GDPis $20.55 billion (USD), of which 21% comes from agriculture. Thesurrounding countryside, irrigated by the lower Chenab River, produces cotton, wheat, sugarcane, vegetables and fruits. The city is an industrial centre with major railway repair yards, engineeringworks, and mills that process sugar, flour, and oil seed. Faisalabad is a major producer of superphosphates, cotton and silk textiles, hosiery, dyes, industrial chemicals, beverages, clothing, pulp and paper, printing, agricultural equipment, and ghee (clarified butter). The Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry monitors industrial activity in the city and reports their findings to the Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry and provincial government. The city also has a major dry port and an international airport. Faisalabad is home to the Akhuwat-Faisalabad Institute of Research Science and Technology, University of Agriculture, Government College University, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Divisional Public School Faisalabad and National Textile University.


They are almost identical. So either this page has been plagiarized, or your assertions about Faisalabad being 20% of Pakistan's economy are taken from a less-than-reliable source.
Your second source noted in April 2017 (where you refer users to the Export information here, is taken from a fact sheet from a Pakistani students association page at the Tasmania University Union, and again, has been likely plagiarized from this wikipedia page. The fact sheet you cite itself offers zero citations. A cultural group at an Australian university is not a reliable source for economic statistics, especially when those statistics are being misinterpreted to make an extraordinary claim.
Neither is a reliable source, yet you used both in April 2017 to include erroneous information about this city constituting 20% of the Pakistani economy. Reliable sources don't include random sites with erroneous information that contradict common sense. Willard84 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Willard84, my response follows...

  1. Your sourced information is incorrect. - The statement referring to 20% of Pakistan's annual GDP was added 2 years ago, first on May 2, 2015 and was later removed, then added back July 12, 2015. Both editors cited the same source which was an Internship Report by Ghulam Mustafa for SBP BSC (Bank) that was reviewed & accepted by a supervisory committee. Other sources followed. It's gone now - you removed it - it's all good.
  2. And yes, the source is a problem if it says that Faisalabad's economy is both $43billion and $20.5 billiony - the $43 billion was for 2013; the $20.5 billion was the average over several years. I added clarification, the sources are cited, so it's all good.
  3. And secondly, you don't address the extraneous information that 21% of Pakistan's economy is derived from agriculture. Is this a page on Faisalabad, or the Pakistani economy?? - Well, considering the syntax has changed with the removal of the GDP statement, it's an orphan statement, and no longer fits.
  4. Thirdly, can you explain why we need a long list of industries in the lead which are already in the economy section? Faisalabad is a major producer of the items listed, and I see no reason why we shouldn't include them, but wouldn't object to eliminating a few of the lesser important items. Keep in mind that for many, the lead may be the only thing they read so it should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. The economy, imports/exports, government, population, etc. are of primary importance to Faisalabad, and with an article this length, a 4 paragraph lead is a reasonable expectation. You attempted to reduce it to two paragraphs.
  5. Fourthly, why did you re-instate The Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry monitors industrial activity in the city and reports their findings to the Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry and provincial government into the lead paragraph? Some bureaucratic/governmental workings are important to the lead when relative information is also mentioned in the body of the article. According to FCCI they enjoy the "status of the apex body of trade and industry" and have "a significant and most distinguished role in the economic development of the city in particular and country at large." Why do you think it doesn't belong?
  6. Lets not be overzealous in maintaining bad lead paragraphs, especially when the information presented is so wrong. This lead paragraph needs major work, and you're reverting a better lead to a much poorer and inaccurate lead paragraph. One or two correctable sentences does not a lead make. You removed the 20% GDP error which was an improvement. I clarified the annual GDP statement, so the lead is now accurate. The entire article needs some citation cleanup, and the body could use some tweaking and updates which may or may not affect the lead. The article has 5589 words of prose and the lead has 315+/- which is not ideal, but it is inline with MOS:LEAD. Differences of opinion are what TP discussions help editors resolve, and if that doesn't work, there's always the RfC process. Atsme📞📧 06:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Faisalabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Faisalabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faisalabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Good Article?

Is this really an article that qualifies as GA? I had my doubts at the time it was elevated but it seems to have become even worse since then. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does qualify. The few corrections/fixes you made out of 5561 words is minor - it's a GA not FA. Thank you for helping but if you had doubts when we were going through the GA review, you should have said something then. Try discussing on the TP what you think needs to be fixed, or better yet, fix it. Atsme📞📧 04:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I feel sure that I did say something at the time. I've made loads of corrections to this over the years, I think, and indeed quite a few corrections to your own misreading of sources at various articles. The issue with the Lyall family stands out but there have been others, more recent and more obvious. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The Sir Charles James Lyall vs Sir James Broadwood Lyall was an issue, including the naming of the monument in Jinnah Garden, Faisalabad. There are photographs and images out there now by photographers and painters who either misnamed the monument, or named it correctly. I have no way to verify it, so if you do, please cite the RS. The editors who collaborated on this very lengthy and once unstable article before a few of us came in and cleaned it up, did the best we could with the sources available to us, and would rather you help fix any issues you find instead of being critical of the work others did. Your 92 edits (447 bytes of added info) is much appreciated but I don't think it's a free license to be overly critical of those who have invested far more time and energy with 338 edits (29,734 bytes of added info) and vice versa. We're supposed to be collaborating to make it better. You can dial down your criticism of my misreading of a few sources because your throwing stones from a glass house. It would be better overall if you would just fix what you think is incorrect, be it dead links, or whatever you think doesn't support a particular statement of fact - oh, and you could try discussing it on the TP first to see if maybe it was you who misread the source. Here is the actual reviewed article. Atsme📞📧 18:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If an article isn't good, it isn't good. It isn't on me to fix it. Crap is crap etc, poor is poor, average is average, regardless of who edited. However, I asked a question, as someone who is involved with GOCE should have recognised. I actually do not even understand what you are saying above from the bit about glass houses through to the end. Nor do I understand why you think that someone is not entitled to query just because they weren't around (or whatever) when the article was nominated - that would exclude all people who didn't even contribute to Wikipedia at the time.
For what it is worth, "Manchester of Pakistan" is almost certainly going to need some sort of explanation as the two cities seem to be very different. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue, Sitush. I've stated my position. We include what the sources say, and there were plenty of sources that use the phrase "Manchester of Pakistan". If you have a source that discredits the use of the term, then add the other view and cite it. Atsme📞📧 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faisalabad/Archive_3&oldid=1074830772"