Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad Ali Jinnah/archive2

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:55, 18 November 2012 [1].

Muhammad Ali Jinnah edit

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TopGun (talk), Inlandmamba (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we believe it meets the criteria. Were it not for Jinnah, the map of Asia would look different, for without him there would be no Pakistan. This article has received a ton of work by a number of people, including the nominators but also many others, including a most thorough peer review. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Bangladesh either (indirectly). :)—indopug (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review (disclaimer: I'm Indian)

  • "continued links to Hindustan" and "predominately Hindu India"—the article gives the impression of a simplistic League/Pakistan=Muslim and India/Congress=Hindu duality, which I reckon is how Jinnah and the League viewed things. However, the latter actually had (and has) a prominent secular character to it (though admittedly not as much as the Congress claimed). But the entire article only uses the word secular in connection with Jinnah's Muslim faith. IMO this is not an NPOV narrative; to continually describe India as only a Hindu-majority is to present Jinnah's POV alone; why not present the Congress's argument that united India would be a secular country albeit admittedly with a majority Hindu population.
There is no intent to be POV, other than to treat Jinnah fairly and to get readers to read the article, like any other bio. I will add the things you suggest and make clearer such things that Congress had Muslim presidents sometimes and also what you suggest. By way of disclosure, I'm an American of predominately Eastern European extraction and have never been closer to either nation than Dubai.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that Congress considered itself secular but had difficulties with Hindu traditionalists, and was supported at one time by many Muslims (besides Jinnah), in the Lahore Resolution paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also "Hindu leader Mohandas Gandhi": do you just mean that he was a leader who was Hindu, or that he was the leader of the Hindus? Because to intend the latter seems rather unfair; Gandhi's influence definitely extended beyond his own religion.
That he was Hindu. Trying to thumbnail Gandhi in an adjective, even compound, was difficult. Suggestions welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, that Gandhi was Hindu is irrelevant in this sentence in the lead. It can be replaced by Congress leader, or just mention Gandhi without any adjective. May be " influential congress leader". I see the word influential has been used in the text, and can be used in this sentence in the lead as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because although often the Congress followed Gandhi's leadership, he was not even a four-anna member of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In that case, why don't you just go with Gandhi? He is not a totally unknown person needing a descriptive adjective. And if you really want to describe, you can use some phrase after his name (...advocated by Gandhi, an influential leader/politician, or some other term).--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken your suggestion to use influential.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead contains several words in Urdu script and later, one in Gujarati too. Wikipedia:INDIA#Indic_scripts_in_lead has a rule to remove all Indic scripts from the lead because most viewers can't read the language anyway; would it be useful to apply it here?
The problem is, my experience with this article, and similar non-Latin script articles like Khrushchev, is that if you take it away, people put it back. I'd rather lose it myself, it clutters the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should a united British India become independent" why united? Considering that the idea of a divided India hadn't arose then, he wouldn't have explicitly said "united", right?
That's more for readers outside the subcontinent who might not "get" that British India is more in area than today's India.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By appointing an exclusively white Commission, [Secretary of State for India Lord Birkenhead has declared our unfitness for self-government." - you missed a ] I think.
  • Needs copyediting: "Muhammed Jinnah's daughter, Dina, was educated in England and India. Jinnah later became estranged from his daughter, Dina Jinnah". In other occasions too, a linked full name follows an unlinked part name (Jalal in Legacy)
I'll fix these two and look for others, but if you see one, please let me know and I'll take care of it.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Jaswant Singh the best source to use? He is an active politician in the opposition party, against the ruling Congress. Wouldn't his opinion be partisan?
The article uses a range of sources. I looked at some of the press coverage in India of Singh writing his book, and while it was somewhat controversial, it was mostly for it to being about Jinnah. I didn't see anyone calling him a liar. I think his opinions are clearly labeled inline. Churchill wrote history books while Leader of the Opposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article has strong British connections, shouldn't the BritEng First and Second World War instead of World War I and II be used?
Good catch. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P.H. Dastoor" and "H M Seervai" → no uniformity of initials? (I think preferred around these parts is "P. H. Dastoor", but periods and spaces.)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—indopug (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the sort of thing you fake and hope someone with actual local knowledge comes along! I will work though these comments this evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha thanks. I'll start a more thorough review on Monday. For now, a few stylistic points:
  • Watch out for AmEng: "favor"
Ran a script and we should be good with UK spelling.
  • When referring to the Congress party, unlike Congress of the US, a the always precedes it. So "Congress and League" → "the Congress and the League" throughout.
Hopefully got them all.
  • "day – a huge sum at that time – which" but "both dominions—he would be India's first post-independence governor-general—but Jinnah" and "capital Ankara — Cinnah Caddesi — is named after him". Dash consistency?
  • Got those.
  • As for the indic scripts, this article is also a part of WP:INDIA. So you can cite the rule I linked to above if you want to remove it. You retain the script in the infobox though.
Those too.
  • Names in the infobox are overlinked. Where are the citations for his successor Governor General, Speaker and CA President?
  • Successors to public office do not have to be cited. They are easily ascertainable and not subject to dispute. I have in the past removed duplicate citations in infobox, the same person linked in multiple capacities. People put them back. I'll take them out if you want, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not use the superior File:Quaidportrait.jpg? If not actually free, it should be removed from the template below as well.—indopug (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence that it was taken in British India, or when. Insufficient evidence it is PD. Removed.
Fair enough, I'll work though these over the weekend. Note that we are expecting a hurricane in my area early in the week so if I am slow to reply that will no doubt be why.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some of these, I will do the remainder as opportunity and the hurricane, permit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're doing good. I chanced upon the Dawn (newspaper) article today, which says that that newspaper was founded by Jinnah as a League mouthpiece. Yet there's nothing of that here?—indopug (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing fine, thanks, I have added that. Yes, it is true.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RegentsPark Howdy. Thanks for nominating this article and I'd love to see it as an FA. I'm going to try and take a look at this article over the next few days but things are a bit complicated where I am right now, so please bear with the intermittent comments.

  1. The lead calls Jinnah the "founder of Pakistan". However, this is not supported in the body and is uncited.
    I was pushing that off of the quote by Mohiuddin in the Legacy section. If you think it should be toned down, I can think of some way of putting it, "who took the leading role in the founding of Pakistan." I'd rather leave it as it is though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's ok. But it would be nice to see it cited because it is an important claim.--regentspark (comment) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look for something that calls him a founder of Pakistan.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've direct-cited the lede to Ahmed's book.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead says that Jinnah served as the leader of the muslim league from 1913 to 1947. However, according to the body, he spent a number of years in exile in England and the All India Muslim League article states that Sir Muhammad Iqbal became the leader of that party in the 1920s. (Also, was he simultaneously the leader of the muslim league and a member of the congress party?)
    Yes, he could be simultaneously a leader in both because they were not yet playing for real money, so to speak, because the British held the real power. The sources were a bit sketchy on the leadership structure of the Muslim League, but I put what I could find into that footnote. I imagine someone else did the work in India while Jinnah held the titular title, until the king returns. I'm not 100 percent certain on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see what I can dig up. If nothing, we could always say "much off" for the period between 1913 and 1947. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  3. In "Break from the Congress" 4th para, "resigned over the action" - it is not clear from what.
    Still not clear which council that Jinnah was a member of extended wartime restrictions. --regentspark (comment) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though the "resigned from Congress" reasons are elaborated on in the body, I suggest framing this sentence better. Perhaps by adding the clause: "a method he believed was unconstitutional".
    I think I've addressed what you were asking on the last two, but am not certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Background. The writing in this section is stilted. "The city was, and remains....", "The parents ....", does one "obtain" "matriculation" or "a tale"?
I've made some changes. Some of that was left over from before I got involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. More to come ...--regentspark (comment) 00:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Note that beginning Friday night I will be traveling and responses may not be immediate.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid "this photo shows..." in captions
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Quaid6_edited.jpg: source link is dead, and in what year did this become PD in Pakistan?
  • File:Jinnah_Sign.gif: current licensing and description is inappropriate - uploader does not receive copyright for scanning/uploading someone else's signature, and so does not have the right to release it and should not claim authorship. You can use {{PD-signature}} for US copyright, but will need an additional tag if the image is to remain at Commons.
  • File:Majinnah4.jpg, File:Majinnah8.jpg, File:Majinnah10.jpg: when did these become PD in Pakistan?
  • File:Jinnah12.jpg: source link is dead and provided information is a bit minimal
  • File:Quaid_passport_burhan.jpg: source link is dead, insufficient info to verify publication details
It is a form, a British passport. It is published as it is available for those needing a passport. The publication date only matters so we know when Crown Copyright expires, which it has. I'll delete the source link.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jinnah_funeral2.jpg: source link gives publication as 1988, which if accurate would make this image non-free. If it's not accurate, when was first publication?
  • File:Quaid-i-Azam's_Will.JPG: licensing and description are inaccurate - photographer of 2D work does not generate new copyright
  • File:Mohammad_Ali_Jenah_Iran_stamp.jpg: it's not entirely clear why this would be PD in Iran, can you clarify?
  • File:CDGKlogo.png: source used to create image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to you on these within a day or two, I am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there have been a number of discussions over these images, in several venues, as this article has been prepared for FAC. These images are probably in the public domain, they routinely appear in books about Jinnah and on Pakistan's website. If you put "Jinnah" in the portrait field on this form, several of the images appear to be described, with "unknown" as the photographer--and that from the British Library. The early images of Jinnah are almost certainly PD, whatever may be said for the later ones. That being said, I'll look them over individually and probably comment them out until we can obtain further information.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I have commented out all dubious images. I believe they can be brought back, if pre-1946 publication can be shown. I'll keep looking and in the meantime fill in with quote boxes and images of some relevance, showing sites and people mentioned in the article. I do not think it terribly productive to remove an image, File:CDGKlogo.png, which is only used as part of the link to the Karachi portal. I do not think this article should be responsible for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Generally beautifully written. I made some edits; four minor things need addresing:

  • "...which placed the family's property at risk of attachment". What is "attachment" in this context?
Frozen pending the hearing on whether he should be held liable.
Alright, rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bombay's presidency magistrate". What on earth is a presidency magistrate? Link?
Linked to Bombay Presidency#Administration
  • "The caliph was the Ottoman Emperor, who would be deprived of both offices following by the Ottoman emperor,..." something has happened here - not sure what, but it needs fixing.
  • Why no link to Partition of India?

Well done to the contributors. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of everyone for the praise and the review. And the support. I've made those changes.

SupportLeaning to support: I am doing a sources review which I will post shortly. I have made a few minor prose edits, and also have several issues for your consideration:

  • A barrister, like a doctor, teacher, architect etc is "trained" rather than "educated"
  • "a voting majority of three" makes no sense. "A majority of three votes" is I think what is intended
  • Superlatives such as "extremely" should be avoided, in the interests of encyclopedic neutrality
  • "Aga Khan" is a title, not a name, so the definite article should be used, thus: "the Aga Khan"
  • "practicing as a barrister before the Privy Council": can you elucidate on the nature of this work?
  • "Wolpert asserts that had Jinnah been made a Law Lord, he would have stayed for life, and that Jinnah sought a parliamentary seat as well." The parliamentary seat would have been an alternative to becoming a Law Lord, not "as well". So maybe: "...and also that Jinnah sought a parliamentary seat".

There may be a few other issues in the latter parts of the article, but unless they are of major import I'll simply fix them. I echo hamiltonstone's comments on the overall quality of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've dealt with these. At least Jinnah is not a coin, though he had quite a hard mettle.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Puns like that deserve an oppose. Even Jappalang's poems were better (well no, actually, they weren't) Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all the poems I know are about girls from Nantucket. I trust you to give the article a fair shake.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediff does seem to be an Indian news site. I've cleaned up that citation and made it clear it comes from a story by United News of India. The others are done. Thank you for another fine review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After writing a rather lengthy peer review for the article, I have become fairly familiar with this text. Here are a few notes going through the FAC:

  • The article is well written, comprehensive, and seemingly well researched.
  • I can see above that another editor raised some NPOV concerns, and as one might guess, some elements of the article might be somewhat controversial. Although I admit my general ignorance about the subject, I can also say I don't have a dog in the hunt. There are certain words, phrases, and gaps in narrative logic that tend to indicate potential NPOV issues, and I have a very good ability to detect them (it's sort of what I do for a living). Other than a few of the minor issues I mentioned in the peer review, nothing stood out from the careful reading I did of the article.
  • Although there have been a few anonymous IP edits periodically that have been reverted, it's clear that the major editors have maintained a fairly stable article.
  • Many of my comments regarded issues of style, and although I make no claims as to finding every MOS or grammar issue, every small issue I brought up was addressed.
  • Although the article is fairly lengthy, the subject clearly merits the length.

I certainly support promotion to Featured Article. – Runfellow (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. This article needed running through the wringer, and you did the job at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have three supports, with the image and source checks Done. I'm not aware of any issues that would prevent promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Indeed a nice read. There may be a few minor npov issues here and there, but only a few ( for example, "palatial prison", which IMO is ok, but may be thought as slightly taunting with some imagination). However, that is not a major problem. It meets FA criteria.
One source you have used is an article in History Today by Ian Talbot. It mentions Jinnah drank alcohol and ate pork. You have mentioned alcohol. However, pork is not mentioned in the article.. Now, for any other Muslim personality article, whether he eats pork or not hardly matters. However in this case, Jinnah was the leader of a great mass of Muslim people, and the theme of his political movement and achievement centered around islamic identity; still he apparently was not a devout Muslim, not following strict religious laws. This indeed may deserve a mention, IMO. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Dwaipayanc.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add something from that article although it may not be until tomorrow as I am just checking in prior to going out to dinner with friends. Thanks for the support. The "palatial" was intended as strictly descriptive, as it was a palace.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the pork. Hopefully it won't be deleted too often by nationalists. Thanks to all for their comments and support, I think I'm back up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah/archive2&oldid=1138467293"