Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reasons for this page and preface[edit]

Please refer to the comments by user John Carter on the Talk Page of Pervez's bio article [1]]. It was advised that the information included in this page is too detailed for the biographical article on Parwez, which is why this page is being created. Also, a few controversial topics regarding this scholar are discussed there that may guide those contributing to this article in the future. With that said, welcome to the page everyone. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that comes to mind at present might be thatThought of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez might be a slightly simpler title. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about that too... I'll change it to Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, to shorten and simplify it. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rework to improve rating[edit]

Asked for advice from an experienced editor (AsceticRose), who provided the rating/review, for improving the article, will start applying the suggested guideline:

(AR's quote:) Hi Code16, I again took a look at the article. I think it is not about source, rather it is about style, clear-cut presentation of the subject, completeness of the topic, good language, and punctuation. I see the article has enough sources though you can use some primary sources to support the content, but to not elaborate the existing content. The article is on an abstract issue, so elaborating content will only fool the readers. Rather you should focus on the following points: 1) The article should reasonably cover the topic, and should not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. 2) It should be well-written in a clear-cut way avoiding ambiguities or unclear content. 3) More wiki-links, proper punctuation, and good structure are important. It can also have a short 'Background' section having information on thinker and some background information on the topic. I think some little efforts can improve its rating. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

cӨde1+6^TP 14:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]