Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:34, 18 January 2012 editTopGun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,007 edits →POV tag← Previous edit Revision as of 16:48, 20 January 2012 edit undoDarkness Shines (talk | contribs)31,762 edits →Two women abused every hour in Pakistan: new sectionNext edit →
Line 886: Line 886:


*@DS, as pointed out by users above, this will certainly invite a conflict (which is the textbook definition of trolling) but giving you the benefit of doubt, there's ''no'' place for that section or even the content as you seem to ask in a country article. The reasons for such have already been mentioned such as military rule. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC) *@DS, as pointed out by users above, this will certainly invite a conflict (which is the textbook definition of trolling) but giving you the benefit of doubt, there's ''no'' place for that section or even the content as you seem to ask in a country article. The reasons for such have already been mentioned such as military rule. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

== Two women abused every hour in Pakistan ==

Perhaps rates a mention as a cultural thing? ] (]) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:48, 20 January 2012

Pakistan received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
January 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
  • Error: 'FGAN' is not a valid current status for former featured articles (help).
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPakistan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconKarachi (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Karachi, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KarachiWikipedia:WikiProject KarachiTemplate:WikiProject KarachiKarachi
Template:V0.5
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Pakistan  Links for Wikipedians interested in Pakistan  
WP:Pakistan
WikiProjects
Provinces
Regions
Arts & Sports
Transport
Country
Others

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 14, 2004, March 23, 2005, August 14, 2005, March 23, 2006, August 14, 2006, March 23, 2007, August 14, 2007, August 14, 2008, and February 5, 2011.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

File:Pothwari Couple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pothwari Couple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Even without the copyright problems these images are not reliable sources. If local costumes are deemed notable enough for this article (and to my understanding that's usually not the case), we should have a reliable source discussing them and then use images for illustration - preferably photographs, not drawings. Since there was no context, I have removed the images for now. Huon (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This was a serious copyright violation for him. I notified him on his Commons user talk page about these photos. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Now a warning Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


110.224.63.110 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How about telling us what edit you request? That might help. Huon (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kamilhamad (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Military is under the heading "Politics", Shouldn't it be a separate heading in the article? Kamilhamad (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I just checked a bunch of other countries for comparison.
  • China, North Korea, South Africa and South Korea indeed have separate sections for their militaries.
  • The United States, Australia, India, Indonesia and Japan have a section on "foreign relations and military".
  • France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Israel, Italy and Vietnam group the military as a subsection of "Politics" or something equivalent.
Seems a little arbitrary to me, but apparently there's no consensus to put the military in a separate section. So unless there's a specific reason to change, let's keep it as is. Huon (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

article is factually incorrect when it states that "boloywood films are banned since 1965". Bollywood movies are now leagl under some limitations and regularly play in movie theaters

99.51.188.207 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed. It would have helped if you had provided a reliable source for the ban's end, though. Huon (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:BaburCruise.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Persian is not spoken or understood in Pakistan. That's a myth.

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is that you add the following under OFFICIAL LANGUAGES spoken: 

~ Persian (Farsi)
Persian is widely spoken in many regions of Pakistan, and therefore it should be added.
      Thankyou

67.250.9.167 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Give a source that says Persian is an official language as you claim. Being spoken in different areas, which is probably true, doesn't make it official. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

overpopulation

Alongside terrorism and illiteracy overpopulation should be mentioned.

File:051103-NLDF-8159O-012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:051103-NLDF-8159O-012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Islamabadphoto.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Islamabadphoto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:GGJinnah.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GGJinnah.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs to reupload these images here! --lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While it's pretty obvious that a photo of Jinnah is more than 50 years old and thus its copyright has expired, what we really should do is add the missing author information. Circumventing the problem by re-uploading the images that get deleted on Commons seems less helpful. Huon (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yea, read that as, re upload with all the legal requirements. Do public domain images need author information? (since they're older than 50 years)... --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

Positioning, adding & removing images

Mosque is a good idea. We have Badshai mosque already so I have these two to replace Sitar:

  • a punjabi Dulha with Shahbala in wedding dress a punjabi Dulha with Shahbala in wedding dress
  • Line of men bending in Muslim prayers at a Pakistani home during Ramadan. Line of men bending in Muslim prayers at a Pakistani home during Ramadan.

September88 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If they can be balanced with text (preferably related) both can be added by adjusting size, though the first one is a bit more related to culture. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll add something today with text. Thanks for input. September88 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Pic on hold because I noticed and now drawing your attention to the previous peer review's advice against sandwiching text between images. I think we may have to remove a few. September88 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
We can shrink the size and expand the summaries a bit to accommodate. Though it is bad to squeeze in text but there are alternatives without removing images (that will prevent addition of more images though some can still be adjusted along). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The new reviewer is expressing similar opinion about sandwiching. I agree with you on adjusting images instead of the removal, but the ones we couldn't see any way to improve should be removed. I have edited out File:Chinese Chawal in Basmati.jpg on the that note, feel free to add back if you can adjust it. Others I'll leave for now, and see where summaries can be expanded, though sports section is already long enough. September88 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Its good, not necessary to add everything to this article. We do have a dedicated article about Pakistani Cuisine. This should contain only summaries of each. The pictures that really need to stay are ones like Minar-e-Pakistan and other images that can be adjusted. I'll see what else I can adjust. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Considering the comments below I find it highly amusing that you choose to remove Zardari's pic. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Too much clutter as per review. ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Should Khar be replaced by the parliament house? Seems more general... --lTopGunl (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I think only the Prime Minister is notable enough to have a picture in the politics section. The Parliament House is more suitable in replacement of Khar. Mar4d (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I support for Khar as it also highlights the role of women in government, as opposed to general misguided view of them in burqas; besides I could barely see Parliament house in the picture, its far and road is all that visible. But I could also see that I'm in minority here so... September88 (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest these instead if the image is to be replaced.
  • The house of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in Islamabad. The house of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in Islamabad.
  • A Night Shot of the Parliament House, Islamabad. A Night Shot of the Parliament House, Islamabad.
September88 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not majoritarianism, you do have a point. May be we can adjust the way it was before? The Priest's image in early history on the left doesn't look good since it is sending text to right from the start. Previous set up was fine - or if it can be lowered a bit without any sandwiching below to let a line or two above to start from margin. I've enlarged Minar-e-Pakistan to give it prominence it has (can be scaled down a bit if it's too large). Quaid's photograph had related text in the above section so shifted there. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

How about a picture of the late (and more prominent) Benazir Bhutto? The caption could mention that she was the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan and that her husband, co-chairman of her political party, is currently the President of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That would belong to history section where she's being mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually meant to put Bhutto's image in place of Khar. If we need to put a female picture, I just find Bhutto as being more significant. Mar4d (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd just move Quaid-e-azam to the left, otherwise your revisions are fine TopGun. As for politics section, instead of file photo images of politicians, we an have File:Christina B Rocca.jpg and File:Barack Obama, Hamid Karzai & Asif Ali Zardari in trilateral meeting 5-6-09 3.jpg, the former signifies my last posts point and the later our current role in terrorism war with US, alongwith showing our president. Moving back to previous version will just persist the layout problem so lets keep the images to two. I'm also against parliament house because we have enough building pictures already. September88 (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried moving to the left but the image would over lap the section below or sandwich a line or two with above image. May be you can have better luck with it. Well let's compare the first picture you just suggested and the current one. The latter might invoke more comments from our friend from below section :) ...on a serious note, it is a bit less in context than Khar. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed atleast one map now that another is huge, plus one of the two girls pic in demographics as the reviewer advised this as well. The two are interchangeable tho, have you noticed that regardless of the caption "unique style of Kallash Women"File:Kalasha women.jpg, the image was very similar to the colorful girls File:Long Live Pakistan.jpg? September88 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
View of Islamabad City.
View of Islamabad City, Islamabad is one of Pakistan's growing industrial centres mainly because of heavy foreign investment.
The only thing common is both being colourful, the ethnicity is different and are actually representing different things (including the caption and the dresses). They didn't seem to be making much clutter either. But we do have some more white space balance now. To be more precise, the Kalasha image sticks more to the section in question. The other image is just a national celebration which belongs to Pakistani culture. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for this image because 1)Karachi Downtown image is already present in 'Largest cities by population' template. 2)Karachi already has a representation in transport. September88 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Replaced. Good call. September88 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. --lTopGunl (ping) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Kund Malir 3.jpg
Regarding replacement of Islamabad pic, I know it maybe my personal taste, but the article has so many shiny clear skies pics that I think a foggy cloudy atmosphere of the above pic will add some variety. Its more buildings vs atmosphere. September88 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree and per your previous point Karachi already being shown in the interchange image - also I was the nominator anyway. Mar4d replaced it... let him give his opinion. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, just to clarify, I see a few issues with this picture: When an image of skycrapers is featured on the economy section, one expects to see an image of a central business district, consisting of many buildings and high-rise sophisticated structures which help portray an economic hub. This picture only has two buildings, the right one being the Islamabad Stock Exchange office if I'm correct while the other one is a half-finished building which seems rather un-pretty. Everything else is empty and there's no view of any skyline. The Karachi downtown pic has all these elements; it shows the II Chundrigar Road which is basically the financial and economic heart of Pakistan and has the tallest buildings in the country. I get your point about the contrast/atmosphere, and even if this pic is to be replaced on that basis, I am sure there must be better and more developed pictures of Islamabad than this one (Blue Area might be good example). Mar4d (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011

(UTC)

Hmm.. well in that case let this stay unless there's another image from Islamabad. The "sky line" does have a representation in this case. How about replacing the Faisal mosque image with a day image with Islamabad's typical foggy atmosphere to balance? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Which photo do you want to be edited out and replaced by which image? Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
In architecture, the subsection below - Faisal Mosque. A clearer and daylight image, if the purpose is to show that atmosphere in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean in place of the Lahore Fort image? Mar4d (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant that, but on second thoughts that looks much better. Maybe some place else... --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The financial district pic down in the largest city template is atleast cloudy, but the view is from too much distance...I'll rest this for now and see for some other place or if any of the bright pics can be replaced by better foggy ones. September88 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
A possibly better one of Blue Area, a night view. File:Jinnahavenuenight.pngSeptember88 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Balancing depiction

I think there needs to be some more image balance. I don't see Balochistan being depiected. The Swat image can also get a comparison with the one added here (which ever better can stay). I also found a skyline (from within the article), with some what comparable atmosphere (though not foggy) from Karachi. This image is also in a template in the article so has to be considered for redundancy. See images on right. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Just to add my two cents, 2 new K2 pics for display and a replacement suggestion for official flora as their is a tree already in economy. TopGun I was talking about the same skyline pic in my last post. Let me see where Baluchistan pic can fit.

On a side note, as the article has done major adjustments since peer review was submitted, I asked two reviewers to give a 2nd check; would be good if they find the time to do so. September88 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I love the beach pic, but the road to Kund malir seems the only one able to fit, as there can be a place in Transport I guess, without the problem of sandwiching.

And to avoid image over loading at the same time, how about population density map from "demographics" removed and Kaalash pic shifted to its place? There is a population density template in the section, it could do without the map. September88 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, this skyline is much better, but then again redundancy has to be considered (though I don't think it can be much noticed in the template).
  • Although the current one is a very common photograph of K2 but these two are excellent. Though they both can not be added to the article but they should both be added to "Tourism in Pakistan". On the contrary the current one is just as good (and clear maybe the sunny one equals that?). --lTopGunl (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Love the whiteness of the above and the smokiness of the below pic, but I'm rather neutral on the currents one too. Ok. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Economy shows a mango orchard which is agriculture related, the Deodar tree is actually a good image if you expand it, I just checked its licensing which is free too. The current flora images are close ups and seem suitable for dedicated article for that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Agriculture or no its still a tree. Jasmine is the national flower just as the current pic is of national tree. I don't see how the images are suitable for dedicated articles only; just to give an example, India has its national flower as flora representation. I could see if you think its too girly or something though. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I have nothing against flowers. My point here was aesthetics and clarity, but as you pointed out, there's some difference in taste for that. I'm fine by both. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll say road. Lets wait for Mar4d suggestion. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We've only two maps left in the article now (one being the administrative one), I don't think its a good idea to remove the map. Also, it doesn't look like an overload to me... having just pictures would be monotonous. We can remove if there are objections at FAC. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Right.September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We also have to complete two previous remaining checks. One of which is tagged as 'working' by you though. The last one, of the images having valid licensing needs to be completed too so that the a reviewer might not waste time over explaining those.
I changed it to {{done-t}}, although some work is still remaining as I'm literally opening and checking each of the 260 references; but lets not worry the reviewers about them. Casliber said he will comment in a few days so I may be able to complete till then. How about you take a quick review of the images details/copyright etc? September88 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, checking out. Yes, I was doing that at the moment. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done listed below. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Licensing of images (complete list)

Ok, I've made a complete list of all: (No non-free images found)

Results:

Check the licenses before adding any new images or replacing from the suggestions given here. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Buddah pic has an incomplete summary and some other issues as pointed out by Finetooth. September88 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Mar4d can help, I see that he's on commons... The newly added images to the switches need a review too. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep. September88 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Faisal Mosque

I liked the new image, but I added the old one for it being a panorama and for elegant variation of the images which seemed a bit similarly put. Any thoughts? --lTopGunl (ping) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks better though I think the size should be reduced a bit more. Also, there is sandwich text created at sports. I think we should get rid of one pic there and follow the one-image formula for that section too. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The panorama was not clear enough, thus I think the new pic is better. Mar4d (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Right. Sports, which one to keep. Hockey; official nation sport and cricket; de facto national sport. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
At the moment hockey pic is better so I guess keep it. Although cricket could enjoy a unique commentary like' "players enjoy celebrity status in the country", as compared to the same 'national' captions of Hockey like two flora and fauna pics. If a clearer and better pic of cricket is found it can be replaced then. September88 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Please go ahead and do the neccessary changes. Mar4d (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Review Cricket in Pakistan if you want. I have no objections on which ever stays - just which ever has better aesthetics. --lTopGunl (ping) 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As well as the fact that it is a recognized UNESCO World Heritage Site, an architectural landmark built during the Mughal era and there is already a picture of Badshahi mosque in demographics section. Mar4d (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, although we have WP:WEIGHT for the Mughals all filled up. --lTopGunl (ping) 13:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Using the switch feature for images

Going through the proposals for images, I think I have a better idea in which we can accommodate many photos and also have different representations and varities of landscapes etc. If you look at the India article, you may notice that some of the images there change whenever you refresh the page or re-visit it another time. This is because they are using a "switch" template (see here). This seems to be a function which randomly rotates selected images in a continuous cycle. We could use a similar function in this page and thus have a number of pictures (for example in geography, where the K2 and Swat valley picture can exchange every now and then with other pics) rather than having to worry about only putting permanent pictures. Mar4d (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Esp. for the national tree and flower, K2 and other good images that could all be kept. Let's try it out. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats wonderful! I totally agree, Had no idea this feature exists. September88 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good find Mar4d, you solved all the debates. September88 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the Karachi skyline image from the template/table might find a place in it too since then it wouldn't actually be redundant. All the rest are good to go. I think we can also sneak in one of the beach images and the winding road to the beach in the same switch as K2 or the valley since it will have its own caption and will be in geography section. And not to forget a switch for hockey and cricket... seems like the solution to all the image problem here. Though the switching might surprise some readers who want to copy an image but it wouldn't load when they go back to the article next time. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
How frequently do people copy images from this wiki though? And while we're at it, Zardari/Gilani and Hina/Benazer won't be bad either if its suits. September88 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I do it every other day. You might get the IP troll back for doing that... On a serious note, not a bad idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Its good, at least there is an option now. Any idea how often is server's cache purged? September88 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Whenever the article is edited, or a manual purge is done... or randomly on its own updates. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. September88 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, current second is the current second on server (out of 60) while "mod" means dividing by the value after it (that would be 8 in this case) and using the remainder of the division for the result... so that would be something like 57/8 (and remainder used instead of the answer) to switch the image after that much time... this would mean a change on every purge. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering the new info about the frequency of image switch, I take back Hina and Zardari suggestion. The current version is fine in politics. September88 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding the switch feature

Ok, got free, I'm adding the feature to the chosen pictures, will list here. Also, I think there's a serious issue we need to look at. I'm now editing from a wide screen laptop - almost all the images at the end of sections are displacing edit buttons or headings. Do you see this or is it just different on different resolutions? :/ --lTopGunl (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Added:
    • K2.
    • National tree/national flower.
    • Karachi/blue area.
    • Swat valley/Swat valley lake/Kund Malir beach/Kund Malir winding road.
    • Universities: GIKI/LUMS/NUST. Need to add a medical one too.
    • JF-17/F-16.

--lTopGunl (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you back! The pics look gorgeous. I just did some tiny link fixes and added another of kulir beach becoz that seemed more beautiful to me. It can be replaced with the other beach too if you prefer.September88 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And yes, the images size wary according to the screen and most of the images are exceeding their section in wide screen. Perhaps if they are set by %age instead of px they would occupy the same screen width in every screen? September88 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ty, can you copy the full article to your sandbox and give the percentage a test (haven't tried that before)... I'll give it a review in your sandbox to see how does it seem on the widescreen. The pics are fine now (other than the setup on different resolutions issue)... I forgot about keeping the ref with a stable pic. Good catch. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was wrong in my assumption because as far as I've searched no %age system for pics exists *shocked*. Anyway I'll try to adjust the pics somehow but if they still present the editbutton replacement problems, then I guess we'd have to present for FA like this and rely on the fact that the other featured articles particularly Germany/Japan have more than half the pics with similar problems on widescreen. September88 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
May be we should ask some one who's gone through this before...waiting for Mar4d's comment... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably let this be this way on the resolution we did it on... some one who objects can be invited to fix it too. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Map of provinces

I propose having a large-sized "clickable" map of the administrative units and provinces, similiar to what's been done (example) at Iraq#Governorates, India#Subdivisions, United Arab Emirates#Political divisions and many other articles. The current map's size is barely enough to make out the names of the provinces. Mar4d (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: that's the purpose of maps. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Support: Go ahead. I'll suggest the removal of map in demographics section per peer review though. We have four almost similar maps in the article, one of which is about to go huge.September88 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
One map you might notice (was it administrative divisions?) has been dragged disproportionately probably in MS-paint! --lTopGunl (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I made the changes at Template:Pakistan Administrative Units Image Map. However, I'm going to ask for some help in making the map "clickable" as that requires some sort of expertise. This would allow readers to click on the provinces/territories on the map and automatically open up their Misplaced Pages articles. Mar4d (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to help with it. Isn't the map too large? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It's rather complicated, so I might actually put an edit template request on the talk page. As for the map's size, I checked other countries' versions and many of them go up to 500 or 600 pixels. This one's 500. If you see the links I gave above (eg. India, UAE, Iraq), their maps are also large. A large map also allows readers to make out the provinces clearly. Mar4d (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought you would put up a clickable map that opened into a larger (and clearer) size. Ah, just saw your example... it does need a techie. Do we have a coloured map? ie. with different colours to adjacent entities? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
People can still open up the file page, though by clicking on the "I" symbol rather than the image itself, which has been embedded in template form. As for the colours, we can ask someone familiar with image editing to add colours in the subdivisions on the map. Mar4d (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the info link. An edit request for the template then. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken references

These to references are broken; there names added with no links or citation.

  • "<ref name="World Scientific"/>"
  • "<ref name="International Institute for Strategic Studies through the 2006 dossier. Initial research and publishing was done by the The News International of Pakistan"/>"

Can some one else give them a try? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Working. September88 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Another reference broken during your last removal I think "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GoP; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text". --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
What was the source "GoP"? An official website? (If that, it is reliable enough to cite information about Pakistan). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok I'm sorry, I was so busy I somehow completely missed this and politics discussion. GOP's source was www.Pakistans.com. The site practically tells no info about its owners or sources and seems currently on sale with nothing but main page containing empty links.
September88 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, that is obviously not an official site. No problem, that discussion is still on. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous reviews

I don't know if all the previous peer review issues from this review have been fixed or not - it didn't make GA after that review so something might be left if not fixed over time: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Pakistan/archive2.

Also note in the Featured Article review when this article was demoted, poor → Ãlways Ãhëad got a alot of POV bashing to make him add negative information to the liking of a few reviewers and even IPs under the pretext of balancing: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we are getting it reviewed again. We'll just have to make sure the article is through before nomination, maybe even nominate for GA before FA. Also regardless of the haters baseless propaganda, Always Ahead couldn't have handled so many alone, tho' I give him credit for trying. We are atleast three so we may fare better.September88 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
He was still trying to work up to their expectations... too bad he's inactive now. GA is not a pre-requisite for FA. A good peer review would be enough. And as you mentioned, we have enough hands here to handle requests during the FA review as well, though I hope we'll get it good enough before them with the current peer review. Some texts, though non objectionable are missing citations, I'll try to get some from the linked articles... add citations to paragraph ends if you find them uncited. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Over all structuring

Propose more structuring and some shifting. "Eduction" needs to be shifted to a subsection of "Infrastructure". "Health" and "Energy" are needed under the same. A section for "Crime and law enforcement" is absent (may be "Court system" can be added too?). Demographics needs a "Language" section and one for "Family structure" --lTopGunl (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead with shifting Education. As for the others sections, I think the more concise and simpler the article contents are the better. India and Indonesia two featured articles have a smaller number of contents than Pakistan's. We might want to draw our attention towards improving current sections, culture sure needs improvement, politics too with mentioning the terrorism war, nuclear program etc that was criticized as absent in Featured delist review. Maybe add a sub-section "War against terrorism" under politics. September88 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think creating a sub-section for terrorism/war-on-terror is a good idea since it becomes a weight issue though the content can be mentioned in paragraph form. Mar4d (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
War on terror will bring only dispute and POV war to the article since Pakistan's current position is controversial. Some mention is ofcourse necessary as per its notability, but that should go to the end of military section (if not already there). The content should be kept small but that is not equivalent to not having more structure. The structure of important subjects esp. health and law enforcement needs mention atleast, (a small paragraph) with a navigation link to main article. About nuclear program, that can be covered more if an energy section is created. That information only belongs to military or energy section. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no war on terrorism. For other sub-section how about we ask the reviewers and then make a decision? September88 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's the list:
  • Language (under demographics or may be culture - what ever the trend is).
  • Health (under infrastructure),
  • Law enforcement (under infrastructure or independent - what ever the trend is).
  • Energy (under infrastructure - week support for this).
  • Court system (where should that go? - not any support; just a suggestion).
Obviously all will have very small summaries and links to main articles to keep the article concise. Is this good to be posted at review? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Scratch Language which has been covered in the third para of demographics. Court system and Law enforcement play same role of bringing justice so can be merged. September88 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) fourth para of demograph not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Putting it up. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well no problem. We can find and add images of any cricketer later on. September88 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Content

Refugees

Pakistan's census does not include the registered 1.7 million Afghan refugees from neighbouring Afghanistan, who are mainly found in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) areas, with small numbers in the cities of Karachi and Quetta. Around 2 million refugees, mostly from Afghanistan Bangladesh, Iran, Africa, and other places are also found in Pakistan.

Please recheck this inconsistency from last edits. In the last sentence 'also' means other than Afghan refugees. So the underlined text seems more correct. What does the citation say? If it is Afghan, then the word 'also' seems redundant and the figures are inconsistent in the same paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Reverted to previous. The citation only mention Afghanistan refugees. I couldn't find any source for other 2 million refugees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find any other source. Other wise its better to completely remove the sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it since sources place Pak on top of refugee hosts at 1.1-1.7 mil . It can be put back if a source is found. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are actually many Bangladeshis in Pakistan. I think the reference to Bengalis can be added after Afghans since they too are in a large number. I believe the main article for Bangladeshis in Pakistan has a news source which gives their number. Here's an article dated 1995 by the way which claims that there are more illegal Bengalis in Karachi than other groups (even Afghans) at the time. Mar4d (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"Iran, Africa and other places" is unsourced and should be removed. And plus, I doubt we have a large number of African and Iranian refugees here anyway (certainly not as notable as Afghans and not anywhere near the Bengalis). I would also like to add that we can also add the Muslim refugees from Burma (see Burmese people in Pakistan) in the refugee sentence. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I removed it. And 1.7 M + 2 M goes over the top anyway. If Burmese people in Pakistan is a significant number, it can be added at the end of paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The 1995 link I gave above (although outdated) says there are 200,000 Burmese in Karachi. Seems like a large number. I'll try to dig up a more modern source. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable so I've added it. If there's an updated figure it can later be replaced. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. You guys are fast. September88 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Even if there's not an updated figure, the Burmese community does have some wide coverage (such as here) so it makes sense to mention them in the refugee section along with Afghans and Bangladeshis. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A source I gave above mentions Pakistan hosting most refugees in the world. Does that need a mention? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That's an important piece of information in my opinion, since refugee migration has influenced Pakistan's demographical history in many ways. The fact that it has the largest refugee population in the world is definitely notable and should be given a mention. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine

I think we should remove the bit about Pakistani-Chinese food from the cuisine section because it's being given too much weight by being featured on a main article like this. Readers can go themselves to the Pakistani Chinese food article by locating it on the Pakistani cuisine article which has dedicated sections about regional food variations. This page should only contain a summary of native Pakistani cuisine in general, like all other countries' articles on Misplaced Pages. Third opinions are welcome. Mar4d (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I also propose replacing the current picture of Seekh kebabs in the cuisine section with perhaps a better substitute, like this image which has Seekh kebabs as well as naan and Chicken Tikka. The image overall also looks nice. Or, I also have another proposal: Pakistan's national dishes are Biryani and Nihari, so perhaps a picture of either of these would be appropriate for the section. What do you think? Mar4d (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree about Pakistani-Chinese cuisine. I think you already removed the link? The image you suggested is much better and clearer than the current one. Better to replace it. Remember to place the current image in the main article if it already isn't anywhere else so as not to orphan it. Check out the comments in the peer review. More than one image in this section will either sandwich the text between images or send images down overlapping in sections which are both bad. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone feels that there is a better image (eg. of a Nihari or biryani) or any other food, suggestions are welcome. Mar4d (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Urdu name link to wikitionary; is that done elsewhere? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan uses a Wiktionary link for its transliteration. The Wiktionary page also gives pronunciations and spellings of the word in various local languages. Mar4d (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Strategic location

Is it notable enough to add Bush's coined usage of "Greater Middle East"? Pakistan does not call that itself and nor does the rest of the world. It would only be suitable for addition here if it was of national importance to Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Greater Middle East article, Pakistan is often classed as part of the region along with Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan. I don't find the designation controversial since the use of the word "greater" makes the definition distinct from Middle East (which Pakistan is not a part of). Although Pakistan is a South Asian country, it strategically lies at the crossroads of Central Asia and Middle East (i.e. historically, whoever went to India from these regions (people of invaders) had to go through Pakistan; Muslim empires are an example). Pakistan is close to Oman, an Arabic-speaking country in terms of coastal proximity, and shares a border with Iran, also a Middle East country (as well as the fact that the Balochistan province lies on the Iranian plateau and is historically connected with Greater Persia). From these perspectives and contexts, I find the reference to Middle East appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That is right, but classed by who? That is the question here for NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I remember at some point, the lead did not have the word "greater" in it i.e. the sentence was written as "Pakistan is strategically situated between the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East." How about omitting the word "greater" so as to avoid confusion with Bush's term and just leave "Middle East"? Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan actually is in South Asia. Bush's term is just a neologism. About the strategic description, isn't that a bit long and good for body (geography probably)? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right, though that still doesn't override the fact that Pakistan borders Central Asia and the Middle East. Check the Middle East and Central Asia articles if you want to know what I mean; both articles list Pakistan in the "greater" (Middle East#Greater Middle East) and "nations sometimes included" (Central Asia#Nations with territories sometimes included) categories respectively. What I'm trying to say is that it is important to mention Pakistan's geostrategic location somewhere in the article. Moving the sentence to maybe somewhere into the start of the geography section sounds appropriate. You do have a point, Pakistan is a South Asian country first, so sticking up Central Asia and Middle East right in the fifth sentence of the article in the lead is probably not reasonable and is a matter of undue weight from a geographic perspective. Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
There's no issue with describing Pakistan's geostrategic location. The question here is only about the terminology used. Somewhere in the start of geography seems fine (or maybe we can check an example from another country). As you said, the description without the term 'greater' is ok, the dedicated regional articles can go into the detail of even the popular coined terms like this but inclusion in this article either needs to have national importance or a global view. How about you add the description you were planning and then we can review it in the article and tweak if needed? The point is does the last line mentioning the "Greater Middle East" in the politics section get to stay? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have it in the lead. since even according to bush Pakistan is 'included' in the 'greater middle east' while the lead is describing the position as 'between'. That sentence otherwise too needs rephrasing. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, just to clear up some confusion, you want to remove the last sentence in the politics section about Bush's coined term and also move the sentence in the lead to geography section. Is that correct? Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wanted to remove the term "greater" from the lead which was confusing there (which is already done). Though the lead still is a bit confusing since Pakistan is in South Asia while it puts it in between the regions contradicting a previous sentence. As for the bush's term in politics section, I wanted input on whether it is important enough to stay on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to move the sentence from the lead into the geography section. As for the reference to Bush's terminology, I think it should be removed and it would probably be more worth mentioning in the Foreign relations of Pakistan article instead. George Bush is not the President of the United States anymore. The Bush administration is history, and accordingly, mentioning its coined terminologies / policies here is sort of irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Ok, may be a rephrase would do too. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've edited out Greater Middle East bit. On another note, I've got a better idea about the lead. From what I understand, the main objection here about the geostrategic sentence is that it refers to as Pakistan being between South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East when Pakistan is actually a South Asian country. How about we keep that sentence in the lead instead of moving it down to geography by rephrasing it in such a way that the misconception in the sentence is removed. By doing so, we basically clarify that Pakistan is a South Asian country but that it is located in a geostrategic position where it meets two other regions (Central Asia and Middle East) rather than "between" the three regions which is the misconception. I think the word crossroads is the precisely the sort of adjective that is appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose the following sentence to replace in the lead (suggestions and improvements are welcome):

Pakistan is strategically situated at the crossroads of the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.

Mar4d (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is good and very precise. How about adding that a significant part of silk route crosses/goes through/is in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a new piece of information (I'm not sure if a lead normally gives any new information not present in the article body. It does seem suitable in the history or foreign relations section though and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it struck me for that too. It is better suited in history or geography (or maybe transportation?). It should be mentioned in 2-3 words in this lede sentence and added to a section since it is an important piece. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead says, "important regions" of ... but doesn't tell important to who or what. Shouldn't this be removed and be later mentioned in the text on how they are important? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Adding why the regions are important in the body would be off-topic a bit, though I think the word "important" has been written because the sentence is discussing geostrategy (observe the word "strategically"). Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Right. Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox reads "Unity, Discipline, Faith"... I've always known it as "Unity, Faith, Discipline". Can this be confirmed from a reliable source...? official site? The Urdu version (might not be in the same order as English one) is "Faith, Unity, Discipline". --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its generally referred as you say. Found this and this source on a quick search which is good enough to change the order if you want. September88 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Confused about it. I found reliable sources claiming all possible orders. Only if an official source or a Quaid's speech could be found... --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Found the official source.http://www.infopak.gov.pk/Eemblem.aspx. September88 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Just saw this. Editing for it. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done --lTopGunl (ping) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Gangetic Plain

This is the content from the citation:

Pakistan is situated at the western end of the great Indo-Gangetic Plain. Of the total area of the country, about three-fifths consists of rough mountainous terrain and plateaus, and the remaining two-fifths constitutes a wide expanse of level plain. The land can be divided into five major regions: the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges and their subranges; the Hindu Kush and western mountains; the Balochistan plateau; the submontane plateau (Potwar Plateau, Salt Range, trans-Indus plain, and Sialkot area); and the Indus River plain. Within each major division there are further subdivisions, including a number of desert areas.

I think this is only a preview and full citation free access is not needed per WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can still confirm though. This detail is about that content in question and seems to be an appropriate citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The extent of the Swat and Cemetery H culture of the Rig Vedic people was in the Hindu Kush to Punjab region and the upper gangetic plains. The late Vedic period, from 500 BC onward, blends into the period of the Middle kingdoms of India.
The problem is not about whether or not Pakistan is situation within Indo-Gangetic. But whether 'Cementery' and 'Rig Vedic' people lived in the Indo-gangetic region in the early history of mankind? These lines are under "early history' sections. As it is, the source is describing the present geography while the content asks for past cultures verification. Two different things. September88 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I'll see if I can find another reference. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Since the "quotes" are removed from the acronym sentence, the sentence now implies that there are still 30 million Muslims in the area. Either the quotes should be put back or the sentence should be changed to past tense ie:

The name is was an acronym representing the thirty million Muslim brethren who lived in PAKSTAN—by which we meant the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan.

--lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll change it. I removed the quotes because the source containing direct quotes could be deemed unreliable and the new source does not have the exact wording.September88 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Put back quotes instead because the other wording sounds really awkward. September88 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
What if I give you the original pamphlet? . I've added it. Check out. I think the source is now properly cited (Even if the link doesn't work - as you say that is not necessary). It was there in the previous sentence too, just noticed it. I think even if the source is considered unreliable, the original source is still attributed and will stay reliable. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice!September88 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking/Underlinking

I think the first occurrences should be linked in lead. Body should be handled accordingly as well. There're some points given on the peer review page by Finetooth. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the links as advised by Finetooth in the review. But Mar4d is right too, India is a featured article with half the lead linked. I'm neutral on the issue for now. September88 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
They should be minimized but not completely cleansed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Science and technology

I think there should also be a short sentence on the Pakistan Antarctic Programme in the science and technology section, since Pakistan is only of a handful of nations () to have an active research presence in Antarctica, including a summer facility (the Jinnah Antarctic Station), and plans to open another base soon which is going to be permanent (unlike the Jinnah station) as per this. Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Sure. September88 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Added with reliable source. Mar4d (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations and redundancy

I plan on completing the overhaul of references within the next week. Can you guys tell me which content you consider redundant because I don't want to end up finding sources of content about to be removed. Also because the references are a mess atm, (many non-obvious lines uncited/ unreliable citations which points back to wikipedia as source) some content might be needing change and some deleted to fit with new sources. Should I wait until the content is stable or should I go ahead with citing? September88 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead with citing, the content will be trimmed to for length purposes and not completely removed, so citations will still be needed. If you think that some content is better covered somewhere else or citations can't be found, remove it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone figure out just where is the "National symbol of Pakistan" table located? Its citation needs updating. September88 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this article and its citations: National symbols of Pakistan. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't get it...O.o September88 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article has a cited table of national symbols, if that's what you were looking for. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that there is only {National Symbols of Pakistan} in Pakistan article and I couldn't find where the real template is located to edit it. September88 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the table on this article. Right, that's a template being transcluded. Let me check it's original location. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Here you go. Templates in the article get listed in the end with categories when you click show preview while editing. --lTopGunl (ping) 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Oky, Thanks! September88 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've completed the review of references. Citations have been filled, dates turned consistent, duplicates merged, content match with sources, Economy & Transport rewritten/updated and all obvious unreliable refs have been replaced.Any minor formatting left will be done in coming days. These are the few sources whose reliability I'm suspicious about, but removing them will mean rewriting Flora and Fauna among other content changes and I thought it best to ask for a 2nd opinion before replacing them.

September88 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've replaced the major suspicious refs. The remaining minor can be dealt with if called out in the review. September88 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. I didn't see this... replacing the refs for the same content with better ones was an easier solution. Is there any suspicious reference left? About "Nations Encyclopedia", encyclopedias are tertiary sources and they might be useful in providing references for the material they provide but I guess there's not much harm in directly citing them either. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
faqs.org, Defence Talk can be critiqued, but since they cover a line each, they can be easily removed if pointed out. As for world-gazetteer, it is sourcing the largest city template and might need a thorough search for another reli. source if criticized. I've been able to find upto 11 largest cities by popul. from official sources not 20 so leaving it for now. September88 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Culture and society

On topic of removing redundancy and structuring. Something needs to be done about 'Culture and Society'. It is haphazardly divided and has too many subsections. I suggest to merge Media's 2nd para with Literature and Architecture under "Arts". Both literature and architecture can be trimmed easily they are describing historical influences which has been somewhat covered in "Early history'. The readers can easily wikilink back to 'Pakistan's Architecture and Pakistani literature' article for details. September88 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems to help on one side, but let me point out the side effect it will have on Sports and Cuisine; they'll be disparaged under shadow of the new big section. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It is. And the section won't be long. I'll keep to two concise paras. September88 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A better Idea. Name it, "Art, architecture, and literature" and put all under it as it is. It will speak for its length. We can then tweak or trim. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
On a second thought, there's no real need. India is an FA and it has short sections under culture in the same way. It is important to give a comprehensive view of culture, which too much trimming will take away. It already has small sections. Merging sections to make it look bigger while actually trimming the content will do the opposite. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
India has literature and architecture under one section. Conciseness is also good for FA. I don't see any need for this delving into history of these two topics, when it has already been mentioned under "History" section that Mughal and Hindus influenced the culture of region. Literature 1st para apart from 1st line can go and architecture 2nd para has unreliable source so will be trimmed anyway, and these both can be merged together as your scratched suggestion said, it won't be too long or short. September88 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
How about this. I'll do a sample of my version of "culture" on my sandbox and then show to you and Mar4 and we'll see which is better? September88 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A sample would be a good idea. Copy-paste it into your sandbox. If the roughly shaped form looks good, we can add it here and tweak it further. Yes, some previous details can be easily removed and my previous suggestion was per that to put them under the same section. However, my second point was meant to prove that some short sections in the article won't do any harm by themselves unless there are other issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I get your point and agree. The number of subsections and the way they are organized is what doesn't look right to me, not the individual length. Will show a sample soon. September88 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Don't put too much effort in the draft version. We'll add quality when it's included. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Right. September88 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Talking about subsections, was there a decision to merge everything in the demographics section? I see that the 'ethnic groups' and 'religion' subsections have been removed and the information has been combined. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did that as per the advise of the main reviewer. See the review page. He warned us of too much clutter from many short subsections which could easily be combined with mains. Same was the case with "Geography and climate". Though, as I gave an example above, having some short subsections is still good to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay. I don't think there's any need to merge the media and entertainment section though. That section includes cinema, music and television, which are three topics with a large enough scope and don't need any merger. The architecture and literature section can probably be combined however. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
After playing around in my sandbox, I've discard the idea myself. If any question of excessive contents arose in FA review, it could be dealt with then. September88 (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a big deal, esp. when we have points to defend the status quo. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Health, energy & law enforcement/courtsystem

This was given an "ok" by a reviewer, see Finetooth comments, part 5, to be added to "Demographics", "Science and technology" and "Administrative divisions" sections respectively in a concise manner. Now the issue is what all to add and which citations to use, since the main articles either lack citations or are in a mess. Let's add some 3-4 liners here for each (suggest in 3 futher subsections here) to compare as a draft. I'm adding very crude versions give your improved ones below them; we can get citations after that or twist the phrases accordingly. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Health

Ok, this one is the lede of the main article to start with:

Healthcare in Pakistan is administered mainly in the private sector which accounts for approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. The public sector is led by the Ministry of Health, however the Ministry was abolished in June 2011 and all health responsibilities (mainly planning and fund allocation) were devolved to provincial Health Departments which had until now been the main implementers of public sector health programs. Like other South Asian countries, health and sanitation infrastructure is adequate in urban areas but is generally poor in rural areas. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished.

--lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare in Pakistan is administered mainly in the private sector which accounts for approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. The public sector is led by the Ministry of Health, however the Ministry was abolished in June 2011 and all health responsibilities (mainly planning and fund allocation) were devolved to provincial Health Departments which had until now been the main implementers of public sector health programs. Like other South Asian countries, health and sanitation infrastructure is adequate in urban areas but is generally poor in rural areas.

Since it'll be under demographics, infrastructure scratched. September88 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw that Health is already mentioned in demographics. We can fit the new info in between instead of a new para. New info in bold.

Life expectancy at birth is 63 years for females and 62 years for males as of 2006 compared to the healthy life expectancy at birth which was 54 years for males and 52 years for females in 2003. Expenditure on health was at 2% of the GDP in 2006. Private sector accounts approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished. The mortality below 5 was at 97 per 1,000 live births in 2006. During 1990–2003, Pakistan sustained its historical lead as the most urbanised nation in South Asia, with city dwellers making up 36% of its population. Furthermore, 50% of Pakistanis now reside in towns of 5,000 people or more. September88 (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth mentioned that, well we're good to go for "health" then. I think there were a few sources in "Health in Pakistan". I think the mention of provinces responsible for the health sector should be mentioned in a one-liner as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done.. Added with tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Energy

This one is a mixture of a few related main article leads:

Electricity in Pakistan is generated, transmitted, distributed and retail supplied by two vertically integrated public sector utilities: Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for all of Pakistan (except Karachi), and the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) for the City of Karachi and its surrounding areas. There are around 16 independent power producers that contributes significantly in electricity generation in Pakistan. Nuclear power in Pakistan is provided by 3 licensed-commercial nuclear power plants under Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). The electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants constitutes roughly 2% of electricity generated in Pakistan, compared to 65% from fossil fuel and 33% from hydroelectric power.

To be tweaked if citations are missing or for improved quality. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done.. Added with tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement & Court system

This is the main article's lede and another main article's list converted to prose for an overview. Seems quite adequate to be put as a summary here (maybe shorten it?):

Law enforcement in Pakistan is carried out by several federal and provincial police agencies. The four provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory each have a civilian police force with juridiction extending only to the relevant province or territory. At the federal level, there are a number of civilian agencies with nationwide jurisdictions including the Federal Investigation Agency and the National Highways and Motorway Police, as well as several paramilitary forces including the Pakistan Rangers and the Frontier Corps. The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.
The court system of Pakistan is distributed as such, per hierarchy; Supreme Court of Pakistan (Apex court), Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan, High Courts of Pakistan (one in each province and also in federal capital), District Courts of Pakistan (one in each district), Judicial Magistrate Courts (with power of Section 30 of Cr.PC only in criminal trials), Judicial Magistrate Courts (in every town and cit, Executive Magistrate Courts (Summary trial court), Courts of Civil Judge (judges with power of 1st class and 2nd class cases).

--lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.

And they're fine I think. September88 (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, no trim? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I sure want court system/law trimmed but the way its written here, there couldn't seem a way to shorten without leaving out crucial info. Did a quick search too and didn't find anything concise and good, so I guess its ok. Just trim the line I scratched above and change the prose some so its not a ditto copy of the two articles leads. This can be the source for courts 123

As for 'Energy', the condition in my house tempts me to write something critical...but seriously its fine. Health should definitely only include the two lines not scratched because it already has a para on it. September88 (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm adding the paras with tags (since you reviewed the sources, it will be easy if you source them). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done.. Added with tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: Here is another version of courts:

The legal system is derived from English common law and is based on 1973 constitution and Islamic law. The Supreme Court, provincial high courts, and other courts have jurisdiction over criminal and civil issues. Special courts and tribunals hear particular types of cases, such as drugs, commerce, and terrorism. Pakistan's penal code has limited jurisdiction in tribal areas, where law is largely derived from tribal customs. September88 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this one is more concise though it flies over the details. Replace it with this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done some rewriting and added citations. September88 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tourism

As per Chipmunkdavis comments on peer review:

I suggest you cut down the total article size I'd do something drastic with the Tourism section. It reads very advertisment like, quite WP:PEACOCKy. It's also weird that it's not included as part of Economy.

And after checking all the countries featured articles, I suggest removing Tourism altogether. Its not the major industry of Pakistan, why a separate section for it? Whatever small influence it has on economy can be summed in a line in that section. September88 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing altogether won't be a good idea. It was there in the article when it was FA (though that article wasn't as good at structure or comprehensiveness as this one), but without a dedicated section. Tourism is known for potential in Pakistan and is hindered by the terrorism issues since the last decade only. See Finetooth's comments about the structure that there's no fixed criteria for the countries and all countries are different after all. I think it should stay, just re-terming any of the WP:PEACOCK words in the section is what is needed (saying K2 is the second highest peak or other facts are not peacock words). --lTopGunl (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I read Finetooth comments but Chipmunkdavis makes valid points about size as well. Besides Pakistan is known for its potential in agriculture 1 2, regional leadership 1 and some other things too. Just because someone decided to focus here on Tourism only doesn't makes it more important than others or makes it necessary for it to be kept. I think giving a separate section to it itself screams advertisement because it clearly belongs under economy where its potential can be described along with the other sectors potential. Your K2 point is valid, and I think the image along with its caption would fit perfectly in geography.

And while we are at it, you mentioned trimming down things in peer review. Where else do you think the trimming should be done, now that we're done adding major new content? In my opinion Flora and Fauna, Economy and Transport needs to be rewritten for prose and better/updated info where some editing in/out can be done. September88 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we add tourism to economy, that's the section which will need trimming. Some content about ancient sites can be shortened and placed in the "Early history" where it is already mentioned with the only addition of its today's significance as attraction for researchers or tourists. K2 photograph will look monotonous and give undue weight to the mountainous terrain (which is just a part of Pakistan) in the geography section as one such image is already there. You are right on the agriculture getting a mention only in the economy section. How about merging and trimming tourism without significantly changing anything else and then scrutinizing it for a thorough trim? For Flora and fauna", if you want to rewrite it for prose and quality, that is one thing, but trimming that section will require some care, ie. without removing the information part and yet fixing the redundancies. The rest are already short subsections and trimming will not be appropriate. I'll give the article another read and do some trimming my self if possible after your go at the tourism merging, will that do? --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, I'll take your advice for shifting some things to other sections and will do an edit. We can scrutinize later and see if it fits. But have to say the point is the removal of less important things so that the main size of article is reduced, so merging or no if the content size is to remain approximately same just spread all over than its a rather moot point. And I meant replacing the geography pic with K2. September88 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the aim but that is often done by reducing the over running sentences without getting much information removed. Let me see. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I ended up editing out a lot, so you can undo and focus on only removing peacock words if you don't agree. September88 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've added back the important info without adding any prose, ie. to the existing text at the end of the sentences. This includes the full section removal of tourism without giving any significant length to already existing sections, see the total change made by your removal and my re-adding . --lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Great! September88 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Regional power

I reckon a short sentence should be added in the article about Pakistan's regional power status, or if not that, at least its "middle power" status. There are reliable sources in various places on Misplaced Pages to establish this (see the following sections: Regional power#South Asia, the map at Regional power#Current regional powers, the list at Regional hegemony). In addition, the Middle power article mentions Pakistan at Middle power#List of middle powers. There's also a very good map at Power in international relations#Categories of power. I think the lead might be the appropriate place to mention this (perhaps as the opening sentence of the last paragraph talking about the armed forces, nuclear power and international relations). Before that happens however, I need your opinion. Mar4d (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything necessary, about both, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, has already been mentioned concisely (keeping in mind we are on an article wide trim drive in the section above). This has it's own notability, but to prevent repetition of that, I say add this in a line or to where the same is mentioned. Military section's end would be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What I meant is to follow the example set at the lead of India which goes off like "A nuclear weapons state and a regional power, it has the third-largest standing army in the world...." Similiarly, the last para of the lead over here could be modified and perhaps start like "A middle-level regional power, Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force....." I'm not proposing any new extra material ofcourse, just three extra words to start the para with references. Mar4d (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That could be done - if it is incorporated in the same sentence. This can be further shortened, just "A regional power" (with wikilink to middlelevel power). But then we'll have to take a look at the body that the tone implies what the lead summarizes. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
See my proposed lead paragraph below (bolded bit is added by me): Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A middle-level regional power, Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force and is the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons also being the first nuclear power country in the Muslim world, and the second in the South Asia It a recognized nuclear-weapons state and is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. It is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and a member of the United Nations, Commonwealth of Nations, Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.

Also, now that I copy pasted the para from the article, I also notice a few grammatical glitches. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly incorrect, it is a "middle level world power and a regional power" (see the main article for middle power). That is why I suggested the shortened form, but if adding like this consider this correction. Yeah, fix the grammar ofcourse. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you write your preferred/modified version of the phrase below, just to clarify? Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"A middle-level world power and a regional power..." or "A regional power and a middle-level world power..." or "A regional and a middle-level (world) power..." --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The following looks good: "A regional and middle-level world power...." since the word "power" isn't being repetetive. Mar4d (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved – Good to go then, add it --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've been trying to modify and make the following paragraph sound better and not repetetive. Here's the current version:

A regional and middle-level power, Pakistan has the eighth largest standing army in the world and is a recognised nuclear weapons state, being the first and only nation to have that status in the Muslim world, and the second in South Asia. It is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. Pakistan is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and is a member of the United Nations, Commonwealth of Nations, Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.

What I didn't like about the previous paragraph is that it was being repetitive by mentioning the Muslim world twice. It should only give one mention to that, as well as South Asia, and it should be preceded by "it is a recognised nuclear weapons state" as that sounds more relevant. Mar4d (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I've changed army back to armed force. Just a question should it be "armed force" or the plural "armed forces"? Mar4d (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ok, starting with corrections, replace army with armed force (check by listing the main article table's "active" column in descending order). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok you changed. Should be plural. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, now there's no mention of Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons first in the Muslim world, but it is concise now. Just to make sure the paragraph doesn't leave ambiguities. On second thoughts, it's good, maybe some more trimming?--lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What if the word "possessing" is added between "weapons" and "state", so as to make it "nuclear weapons possessing state". Does that clear the ambiguity to some extent? Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've made a small change. Check it when you're free and let me know if something needs improvement. Mar4d (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not add anything about possession then since being a nuclear weapons state is enough to be mentioned in the lead for that reason, nuclear weapons possessing state seems redundant/trivial while previous was descriptive but long. I'm changing it to just nuclear weapons state. I think that would be fine? Or change if there's something non trivial. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Looks good now. Mar4d (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress

A question: I noticed Library of Congress as ref. 226 & 44, alongwith this page sections cited individually at ref. 55 & 128. For consistency's sake one of the two approaches is to be applied; it could be one reference to the main page for all the different details or individual references to each section. Which is better? September88 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a way to cite more than one pages of a source from a merged reference. It appears something like ":242". I've seen that at many articles, but never needed to do it. Might be a good idea to ask for the method on WP:Help desk (since I don't seem to find an example article). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Asked, but reference gets long and messy that way. Just bundling up everything under a PDF file now. September88 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Text sandwich

There seems to be a bit of text sandwich in the history section I suggest to remove the priest with Ajrak (since that is on many other articles and in the infobox of History of Pakistan. Also, the POF eye was not sandwiching anything. That section was lengthy enough for two images - actually there was a whole screen full of just text (I've added that back, let me know if there are objections). As a side note, I suggest image of Mughals be replaced with Muhammad bin Qasim's since he is more notable for the earliest history of Pakistan ie. advent of Islam in to this area (open for discussion). --lTopGunl (ping) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Text is sandwiched in the colonel period, politics and sports as well...The new pic in the early period looks really good, so if the removal is to be done, I'd too vote for removing either of the other two because they are somewhat similar ie both statues. September88 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried all I could to remove those text sandwiches before but that either renders the image too small or something else displaced. Those are two lines in colonel and three in sports, that can be handled I guess? Yeah I was suggesting the same, ie. the priest. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think they could be ignored for now... September88 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, fine about that. --lTopGunl (ping) 10:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As the sandwiching problem persist with Budda, how about replacing it with the smaller Indus king/Ajrak? September88 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved – I fixed the issue instead (if that was the only problem). --lTopGunl (ping) 12:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the history section got stuffed up after you made the adjustment. There was a big white space in between early history and colonial. Could you clarify about the edit button being displaced? It looks normal on my computer. Mar4d (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The edit button was displaced to the left by the picture on my screen which is set to 1024x768. I think it might be giving the same issue other wise too. How about moving them back to their places and keeping the "{{br}}" tag at the end so as not to displace the edit button? --lTopGunl (ping) 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, my screen is showing everything perfectly normal. When you added the br tag, there was a big (pretty large) white space about three or four lines long seperating colonial history from early history. Does that appear in your screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar4d (talk • contribs)
I don't know, everything is normal on my screen too (let September88 check it out may be she sees a difference). There was no white space on my screen, only the edit link went to its place. What ever a third screen says. It is ok on my screen at the moment. Check it out. (revert if there's white space). --lTopGunl (ping) 12:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's better than before but there's still an odd white space still about 2-3 lines. I really have no idea what's happening. Does it have anything to do with the internet browser? (I'm using Google Chrome) Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you be more precise as to how the edit button goes on the left? Which image is displacing it (is it the standing Buddha)? Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, atleast 2-3 lines is there for me too (but that's what I did) though it wasn't as much as you said before. At the moment it's 2-3 lines on the left and one line under the picture on the right which is just enough for it not to go to the section below. The Mughal image without a break crosses the edit button a bit which displaces to the left like any other event of an image overlap. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any possible way to finish the white gap (I think it will be raised at featured article review)?.... Mar4d (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I think by changing image sizes and some adjustments there so that br tags are not needed. Because both conflicting issues (ie. white space and link displacement/overlap) would be raised. You can try the adjustments if you want. I'll tell here if the link gets displaced and then we can ask September88 to confirm it. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Which image should be reduces and by how much? Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I reduced Mughal image to 170px and the issue went away but the image was too small for its worth then. It'll have to be a hit and try adjustment I guess. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As the history section is now, I see the edit button replaced. Never saw any white space in either cases. September88 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I mean the white space seperating colonial period from early/medieval period. Can you notice it? Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A tiny white space is present because of the displacement of edit button to the left, if this is what you're talking about....September88 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Then I think you should adjust it since there's already some confusion here. (Note the use of br tags at the end of section to push the colonel section down). --lTopGunl (ping) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Tried by changing sides and by reducing Mughal pic to 150px, the edit button problem remains if <br is not used and if <br is used the white space appears. The only thing that can be done is divide the para into three. Check. September88 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this seems good now - both issues resolved. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Good job. No more white spaces. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • On the same note, Iqbal pic in 'literature' and Badshahi mosque in Demographics are giving the same edit button displacement problem on my screen, is it the same for you guys? September88 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I see Badshahi Mosque doing that but the Iqbal image is fine. Try adding a br tag at the end of demographics then. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done September88 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:National Symbols of Pakistan

Agree, plus there are country articles which have national symbol templates. I'll try to find a way to accomodate it. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
National symbol had, flag, anthem, animal, tree, bird, flower and emblem, as you see apart from two, all these are listed in the article which is why I removed it. I don't have any objection if its added back, but its better if its fitted somewhere it doesn't clutter.. September88 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Progress

550+ edits in ~10 days. Previous version vs current . (A comparison). --lTopGunl (ping) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we will reach the 1000 mark before the end lol. This is what I call progress. The article is a lot improved now, and it will keep on getting better until the goal is reached. Do not want another failed review in its archives :-) September88 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the old version, I can only say: "What a mess!" Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sport

The section doesn't mention anything about Pakistan hosting the 1990 Men's Hockey World Cup or that Pakistan has hosted the international Hockey Champions Trophy tournament eleven times. Just an observation.... Mar4d (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to be concise summary of all sports. It might not be covering some other sports totally. Those need to be added too. It is a short section anyway - maybe we can have two images after some expansion? --lTopGunl (ping) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bhuttu faimly ka qatil Zardari

iqtedar ki lalich me jo apne bachon ki man ko qatal kra de kia wo apne bachon ko maf kre ga.hrgiz nhi aaind wo apne bete ya beti ko bi iqtdar ki nazar kr de ga.Zardari jaisa zalim kabi nhi bakhsha jae ga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.87 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

lolwut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.46.187 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Why is there no section on Pakistani human rights abuses? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the country article, I don't think you are at the right article to put that (how does that get to have a section in the country article) - if what I got from this post is what you meant to say - human rights abuses by who and where? Atleast post the question in full. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What human rights abuses, where, to whom, when, in which specific section and why? You just ridiculously stuffed a POV tag right at the top of the article (and not just some ordinary article) without clarification. I'm really starting to get irked with all this tagging business of yours. First the Muhammad Iqbal disaster, then the nomination to AfD of a notable school, then you're attempts to blank whole sections of articles without adding CN tags and now a POV tag here. This is clear-cut trolling. Mar4d (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Or possibly hounding me? I don't know - but this is building up for an ANI especially that bad tag at Muhammad Iqbal. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Removal of uncited content is policy, see WP:V. The country of Pakistan has a notorious record of human rights abuses. This is no different to any other article so am unsure what you mean by "no ordinary" Feel free to post at ANI if you so desire. I will write a section for human rights abuses as you seem to not wish to. The article will remain POV until such a time as then. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not going to happen. An entire section for human right's abuses? That's ridiculous, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and I'll see to it myself how you come about adding that section. Also, you still have not clarified what human rights abuses you are referring to, and if you are, this is most likely not the right place for such content. You're on the main country article, so it would be worth knowing that anything that is added here is liable for scrutiny and NPOV checks. Since you said "this is no different to any other article", I might as well point out that other country articles (esp. those with much worse human rights track records) do not have entire sections for 'human rights abuses', and the standards don't change here either. Lastly, this article is currently undergoing heavy edits in light of some peer reviews to promote it to FA status. You're well advised to stay off from here if you're edits are seen disruptive. Mar4d (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My note- Yes, as you have already been asked to clarify the"human rights abuses".What do you mean here?. As editors have mentioned that there are worst states where there is violation of human rights,that you did not see for tagging.Your selected targets will be not considered as a Good faith editing to tag.You must know " simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.Tags should be added as a last resort," in this concept of exact meaning of NPOV you failed to detail your concenrs, just having no section does not apply to place the tag,and when you are talking about section and tagging on whole article was also not legitimate,for section there is other tag.

Article is about the state not about the persons,please clarify that human rights abuses are connected to human or to states?.Human rights violation is the act of persons,leaders,policy makers,not state itself. The article Pakistan covers the all military dictators, names with wikified,it means the editors have addressed the concerns of human rights by mentioning those military dictators who were supported by human rights masters.Military dictators means itself,violation of human rights.

There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumption that someone would find controversial.If you have concerns about existing contents, you should that discuss on the talk page. I do not think that in the article Pakistan are any words,passages or sections,they may make the article appear to favour one position over another.Please do not create undue weight, if it is so,I think everyone's action to tag the article about the any country will be legitimate,because every state somewhat,and somehow is in the violation of human rights,about it nobody is unaware. Justice007 (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're comparing Pakistan with Cuba? Wow. Just wow. And since we're talking about this anyway, might as well also point out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mar4d (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has looked over quite a few country articles, I would say here that a human rights section is just asking for trouble. Very few good country articles have them. This is because human rights aren't a small easily discussable topic, as they cover things from politics to religion. Any explicit human rights section will most likely either fawn over how amazing a country is, or turn into an attack section. If there are notable human rights violations, they should be integrated into information about what exactly is being violated. For example, restrictions on freedom of speech would belong in a politics section. This is better for both neutrality and understanding. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis. In particular, the Pakistani human rights situation seems to complex to discuss all aspects in a single section - at Human Rights Watch I found concerns about Azad Kashmir, about "disappearances" in Balochistan and about the blasphemy laws. None of these topics is connected to the others, and we should not create a single section to deal with all of them indiscriminately. Huon (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119079.htm

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/france

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/police-abuse-goes-unchecked-france-20090402

http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/france

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/04/iran-rips-human-rights-violations-in-france-us.html

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/fidh_french_league_of_human_rights_ligue_fran_aise_des_droits_de_l_homme_et_du_citoyen_.

Please to be fair and bold to place the tag on the article now.And do not mention Human rights in France,it's separate article,similarly feel free to improve and expand the article Human rights in Pakistan.Cheers. Justice007 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • @DS, as pointed out by users above, this will certainly invite a conflict (which is the textbook definition of trolling) but giving you the benefit of doubt, there's no place for that section or even the content as you seem to ask in a country article. The reasons for such have already been mentioned such as military rule. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Two women abused every hour in Pakistan

Perhaps rates a mention as a cultural thing? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century
  2. ^ Solomon S (1997) South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership, ISS
  3. ^ Siddiqui ZH, Qureshi IH (October 13, 2005). "Nuclear power in Pakistan" (PDF). The Nucleus. 42 (1–2). Nilore, Islamabad: The Nucleus PINSTECH publication: 63–66. ISSN 0029-5698. Retrieved 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. Kapila, Dr. Subhash (22. 03. 2004). "United States Designates Pakistan as Major non-NATO ally of American in South Asia: An Analysis". South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Aneja, Urvashi (June 2006). "PAKISTAN-CHINA RELATIONS" (PDF). IPCS.
  6. "Senate OIC Report". Senate of Pakistan: Senate Foreign Relations Committee. September 2005. p. 17. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  7. "United Nations Member States". http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml: United Nations. 3 July 2006. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: External link in |location= (help)
  8. "Pakistan". Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  9. The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century
  10. Kapila, Dr. Subhash (22. 03. 2004). "United States Designates Pakistan as Major non-NATO ally of American in South Asia: An Analysis". South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. Aneja, Urvashi (June 2006). "PAKISTAN-CHINA RELATIONS" (PDF). IPCS.
  12. "Senate OIC Report". Senate of Pakistan: Senate Foreign Relations Committee. September 2005. p. 17. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  13. "United Nations Member States". http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml: United Nations. 3 July 2006. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: External link in |location= (help)
  14. "Pakistan". Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
Categories: