Talk:Pakistan/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a review of this article

I'm starting a review of this article. I always like to ask one question early in the process. Is there someone who would be involved on behalf of the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Images, roughly in order (shorthand brief name notes, not proper names or description) abbreviated):

Buddha statue: public domain North8000 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Lord Weeks: Public domainNorth8000 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed: Suitable license

Jinnah: Public domain North8000 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old-sikh-man-carrying-wife1947.jpg See issue note below North8000 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue: Old-sikh-man-carrying-wife1947.jpg This is copyrighted in the US and appears to require a fair-use rationale for this article North8000 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi North8000. There seems to be a lot of WP:CITEKILL, just by looking at the introduction. I also read through it and tried looking up the information in the body paragraphs and it seems like the intro does not summarize the article appropriately, per WP:LEAD. There are also some unsourced paragraphs here and there. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am inquiring about undoing the GA nomination

I am inquiring about undoing the GA nomination. Discussions are at my talk page and the GA nomination talk page. In short because it appears that nomination was out-of-process and premature. Any thoughts? Suggest putting them into the article talk page instead of the review in case the review gets deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review

The is large article with an immense amount of material and references in it. It is also challenging for the editors because it must significantly cover some areas where there are current real-world disputes. The nomination was out-of process without discussion with the article's editors, and by an IP with a lifetime history of two edits, one to nominate this, and one to say that they did in a conversation that essentially said that this should be nominated because it is better than the India article. Just before that a lead editor expressed that much work was needed on the article and an intention to embark on that. Even a preliminary review spotted various areas that need work, a task too big to handle during a review process. Also, there was no response to my request to see if there was a person who intended to be involved in the review on behalf of the article. My only two choices are "pass" and "fail", and so for this article, my only only choice and result is the latter. This article shows an immense amount of excellent work, was nominated without discussion with the article's editors, and is simply not yet ready to be a GA. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]