Wikipedia:Peer review/Pakistan/archive2

Pakistan[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was a former feature article and i am planing to make it one, again. I will put alt text on images shortly, beside this all suggestions on improvement for this article are welcome.

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad you are working on improving it. In its current state, I do not think it would even meet the WP:GAN requirements. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

It has been a week and there is still no alt text ;-) I also note that the dab finder finds three disambiguation links and the external links tool finds five deadl inks and several possibly problematic ones. All of these will need to be fixed.
As long as we are talking about references, the article still needs them in several places. For example the fifth paragraph of the History section and the first paragraph of Military each have no refs, and there are many sentences and other places without refs (if a ref is partway through a pragraph, then the sentences that follow are unreferenced unless another ref is used for them). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
The references that are used often do not give sufficient information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Some books used as refs also lack enough information - current ref 8 is just "Pakistan: a global studies handbook By Yasmeen Niaz Mohiuddin" and lacks publisher, date, and since it is linked via Google Books, it also needs an access date.
I am also not sure that the references used all meet WP:RS - what makes about.com a reliable source? Or why use Encyclopedia Brittanica when there are lots of better sources on Pakistan?
Randomly checking some refs I tried current ref 9 "Pakistan "Pakistan". InfoPlease. 2009-12-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4032997.stm Pakistan. Retrieved 2009-02-22." and it is not from InfoPlease and is instead a BBC report - "Profile: Asif Ali Zardari".
In contrast the lead seems to have too many refs - why are seven refs needed here - wouldn't one do? It is also the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
WP:MOSIMAGES says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, but this is done in five places - Jinnah and the 1970 map, and in the Geography and climate, Education, Culture, and Sports sections. The images are lovely for the most part, but sometimes less is more.
Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as the break up the flow of the article - combine them with others or perhaps expand them - as an example see Most of the languages belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. The exceptions are Burushaski, which is a language isolate; Balti, which is Sino-TIbetan; and Brahui, which is Dravidian. (which needs a ref)
Make sure to provide context to the reader - for example in the Etymology section, there is an explanation of how the name is a Portmanteau (is it really or is it an acronym?) and but there is little explanation of how it can also have a meaning (Paak means pure).
Language is OK in spots, could use work in others, but there are so many other issues that they should be addressed first, then work on language.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are great, i will work on the given suggestions on weekend.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok Done, any other suggestions ?الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More from Ruhrfisch

There is still one dab and several of the images lack alt text. The ones that do have alt text do not really follow the guidelines at WP:ALT - alt text is not a repeat of the caption, it is a description of the image for someone who cannot see. I have fixed one alt text as an example.
There are still several places that need refs - for example this paragraph The modern state of Pakistan was established on 14 August 1947 (27 Ramadan 1366 in the Islamic Calendar) .... leading to the First Kashmir War in 1948. See above please
Refs usually go after punctuation
I looked again at some of the sources used. Current ref 29 is "US Country Studies article on the Bangladesh War". U.S. Library of Congress. http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/17.htm. Retrieved 2009-03-16. but the link is to a mirror site, not the actual Library of Congress website: http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/bdtoc.html
Article could still use a copyedit - language is rough in spots.
Images still sandwich text in places - see above

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]