Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:09, 26 January 2013 [1].

List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

[edit]

List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the list for more than 2 months and it also went through a PR. This is my first nomination at this topic, I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. Comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated, as always. Thanks, Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Link Pakistan the first time round.
    • Linked.
  • "in country's history " the country's history.
    • Done.
  • Is it " Pakistan Peoples Party" or " Pakistan People's Party"?
    • Changed.
  • "Birth–Death" no need for capital D on Death.
    • Done.
  • What does "portrait" mean when half the images are flags?
    • Flags removed.
  • Why are the flags right-aligned?
    • As above.
  • Check use of en-dash in the full date ranges, e.g. should "7 October 1958–7 December 1971" really be "7 October 1958 – 7 December 1971"?
    • Done.
  • "from 1970 till 1972" "...to 1972".
    • Fixed.
  • "the first woman elected" the "first woman" link here is a little bit WP:EASTEREGG for me.
    • Done.
  • "under the article 58-2b," no need for "the" here.
    • Removed.
  • Don't SHOUT in the refs, e.g. check ref 53.
    • Fixed.
  • New York Times should be The New York Times.
    • Done.
  • Who is the publisher of The Dawn?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
    • Is it possible to delink "Post Abolished" in the "Timeline" section? Or simply remove "Post Abolish" and just leave a black line (as you have the key describing what it means)
      • Done.
    • Is it possible to cut File:Mujib-Suhra.gif, to avoid the noting who is who? Also that picture could be bigger.
      • Done.
    • You could include the original title of non-English sources.
      • No, I would prefer this one, for consistency.
    • Ref 6, should be "Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh" according to Gbooks
      • Done.
    • Ref 7, should be "Pakistan: Zia and After". There may be more such mistakes.--Tomcat (7) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against WP:ACCESS, though it is difficult as you did not use colour codes. The symbols must be also accessible. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the references, decapitalised the words, the colours I used are actually party colours and the symbols are now accessable. Zia Khan 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Prose in the lead isn't too bad, but the notes in the table need a lot of work, mainly to reduce overcapitalization. There are also some reference formatting issues that should have been caught earlier. The good news is that the issues shouldn't be hard to fix, for the most part.
  • "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have elected by the National Assembly". Needs "been" after "have".
  • In the photo caption in the lead, is "flag" missing? "Standard of the Prime Minister of Pakistan" doesn't make much sense on its own.
  • Prime Ministers: In the Liaquat Ali Khan entry: "presented" needs capitalization as the first word of its sentence.
  • Period after the last word of that entry shouldn't have a space before it.
  • Muhammad Ali Bogra: Note could use "A" at the start. Also, the "a" later in the first sentence could be removed.
  • Nurul Amin: First comma should be a semi-colon instead.
  • "leading Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." Needs "the" after "in".
  • Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Decapitalize "Nuclear".
  • Muhammad Khan Junejo: Replace "also" with "the".
  • Benazir Bhutto: Decapitalize second word of "Muslim World" and add "the" before it. Three other words need decapitalization in the next sentence of this note.
  • Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi: Here, "Caretaker" doesn't need the capitalization. Same for Balakh Sher Mazari, Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi, and Malik Meraj Khalid.
  • In Mazari's note, the last word should also be decapitalized.
  • Also, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized in Khalid's note.
  • Nawaz Sharif: "Sharif was re-elected as Prime Minister the exclusive mandate from all over the Pakistan...". Needs a re-write. I'd tell you how, but am not entirely sure what the meaning is. Was it that he had a mandate from Pakistanis?
  • Also, "Government" again needs de-capitalization in this note.
  • "and the Martial law was imposed in the entire country." First "the" isn't needed and can be removed without affecting meaning or ruining the grammar. I actually think this is grammatically better without the first "the".
  • Shaukat Aziz: "who left seat after completion of parliamentary term." Needs "the" before "seat".
  • Yousaf Raza Gillani: "Gillani was elected after in March 2008 after the elections." There's an excess "after", but I'm curious as to how he could be elected after elections. Wouldn't he have been elected in the elections?
  • In ref 30, instead of having "pp. 1657 onwards", it would be better to just give a page range, even if it's a large one. Also, there is a double period that just having a regular range would fix.
  • The ISBN isn't showing up as a link in ref 40.
  • A page number would be nice for ref 48, in case the book ever gets pulled from Google Books. I know the page numbers that are avaliable for previewing can change over time.
  • There are also inconsistencies over whether one of the websites is titled History of Pakistan or Story of Pakistan. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved, thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – on referencing style. I've not gone through the prose. But a look at the references reveal that there are a lot of formatting errors:
  • Refs #4 #8, #13, #45 have no publisher information; check for others too
  • Ref #20 is incomplete, there are a few more
  • Formatting error not showing ISBN in ref #40; publisher=Google Books?
  • The Dawn -> Dawn (newspaper)
  • Publisher for Dawn should be "Pakistan Herald Publications"
  • Does "insider.pk" qualify as WP:EL?
  • For continuous page nos. i.e., pages=1657 onwards. it should be formatted as pages=1657–
  • You've linked BBC News in refs #1, #9 and #21 but not in others
  • I'm concerned about the reliability of "storyofpakistan.com", a majority of the article depends upon it.

—Vensatry (Ping me) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved. Of course, storyof pakistan.com is a reliable cite , thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really up to the reviewer to prove a source unreliable, more it's up to you to prove it is reliable. And whatever goes on at Russian Wikipedia is really irrelevant to our own quality standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided only shows the list of refs. they have used for content making. WP:RSN might be the best place to ask. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The links I provided and this one say exactly what reliable sources (The piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work.) is! So, I don't think I should ask at WP:RSN. Zia Khan 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliability of the work itself or the creators. None of them look like professional editors. Looks like a self-publishing source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." This is the definition of a source, and what is a self-publishing source? Zia Khan 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". I hope this'll be sufficient to convince you! Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "as a Prime Minister"
  • "He, during his two terms, remained in the office for the longest period." Think this sentence could be more specific and worded better, would say how long he was in office
  • "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947 ," no space between 1947 and comma
  • "on Kashmir conflict" the after on
  • "He made the constitution of Pakistan..." Did he make it himself? I doubt this, needs rewording for accuracy

NapHit (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Source review
    • Ref 7, should be Pakistan: Zia and After
    • Ref 8 does not include the title you noted ("Muhammad Khan Junejo Becomes Prime Minister (1985–88))
    • Ref 14, title should be " Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Is Pakistan's New Prime Minister "
    • Ref 16, should be Pakistan: The Eye of the Storm
    • Ref 17, should be Pakistan in Crisis, publisher is Psychology Press
    • Ref 18, put the date (20 November 2011)
    • Ref 19, add the date (1 June 2003)
    • Ref 42, title should be Pakistan: The Struggle Within, what you indicated is a chapter (user chapter= and put it there)
    • Ref 46, ditto
    • Ref 58, nowhere do I see the date 21 October 2012, but rather "Last Updated: Friday, July 30, 2004"
    • How reliable is Story of Pakistan?--Tomcat (7) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please consider uploaded new, cropped versions of the photographs so that they can be more visible. Also, that timeline in the end is ghastly and serves absolutely no purpose; it does not aid in visualising the tenures (if that were indeed the purpose). Please remove it.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - alright, now that the above concerns have been dealt with, I'm fine in supporting this list. There were some minor issues with dates in a few references which I've taken care of myself. Consider archiving your online sources with web.archive.org or webcitation.org; while optional, it ensures that if the websites ever go down or remove the information you're citing, your references won't die with them. --PresN 20:10, 21 January 2013 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Pakistan/archive1&oldid=1090670760"