Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Pakistan/archive1
- 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:39, 3 February 2007.
I have nominated this article since it seems to fullfil all the criteria of a Featured article. It seems to NPOV though there might a few statements which need rectification. The article also has a large number of references(31). It gives a complete and comprehensive idea of the military history of Pakistan. Gambit 321 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - fails 1c, and uses weasle words. With just a quick glance, I found glaring examples of text that should be cited/attributed. One example only:
- Pakistan used American weaponry to fight the Afghan incursions but the weaponry had been sold under the pretext of fighting Communism and the USA was not pleased with this development, as the Soviets now became the chief benefactor to Afghanistan. Some sections of the American press blamed Pakistan for driving Afghanistan into the Soviet camp.
- I also find the word "famous" unencyclopedic - prefer notable. It would also be helpful if you would shorten your book references - all info need not be repeated in each footnote - see Battle of Ceresole. I also have 1a and 1b concerns; an example is the single, short paragraph in the section "Yemeni civil war". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reject - Although this article is quite interesting, and although Pakistan, its military forces, and the history of both are extremely important to our world, I must write that this article is poorly written. I wrote a first draft of this commentary that pointed out the errors in the third paragraph of the introduction; however, my list of errors became so long that I decided to omit it. Also, the article contains many uncommon words and phrases that need to be linked to appropriate Wikipedia articles.
Here follows a suggestion of how the current article's third paragraph could be rewritten to conform with standard English-language usage. I quote the current text, and follow it with a possible revision that repairs the grammar and faulty structure.
The Military was created in 1947 and was staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. It was also given units who have had a long and cherished history during the British Raj such as the Khyber Rifles. Since independence, the military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. It has also fought a limited conflict at Kargil with India after acquiring nuclear capabilities. After 9/11, the military is engaged in a protracted low intensity conflict along its western border with Afghanistan with the Pushtun tribesmen.
Pakistan's military forces were created in 1947, and were staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. Some units, such as the Khyber Rifles, have long and cherished histories dating as far back as the British Raj. Since Pakistan's independence, its military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. In the 1990's Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons; since then, conflicts with neighboring India (which also possesses nuclear weapons) have been of grave concern. Subsequent to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, Pakistan's participation in the War on Terror has resulted in a protracted, low-intensity conflict against Pushtun tribesmen along Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan.
Note that this is only a suggestion that addresses possible corrections to faulty grammar and sentence structure; my proposed paragraph has its own faults, and is only presented as an example of possible mechanical repairs.
GrouchyDan 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Ready Yet - I have done general copy-edit for style & should have opened another window for comments here, but, from memory:
- No reason given for first coup
- In general political interface of military, which can hardly be ignored, not well explained or covered at most periods.
- famous units - famous not the best word - dates please.
- not enough on ISI/army relations
- not enough on where troops recruited from, how much paid, no National Service/conscription & general social issues. Are army units mostly regionally based (ie from same region)?
- Possibly a bit too much on the glacier, expensive though it is.
- Current position - who supplied current arms - quick overview needed.
I have made some changes to part of the para Grouchy Dan rewrote above - his changes to 2nd part probably needed also. I did not really look at the citations. Johnbod 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, at the very least fails 1)c. There are many paragraphs without a single reference. Trebor 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.