Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 25 March 2012 [1].

---

Pakistan

Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Pakistan
• Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Pakistan Army/archive1

• Featured article review/Pakistan

Nominator(s): lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and all the required changes have been made to the article. The article is in good shape and well sourced. It has under gone a through overhaul in addition to the peer review. lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on mainpage (should this article be re-promoted, that needs to be reflected at FFA, and mainpage appearance accounted for at FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I haven't read the article yet, but a couple quick things at first glance:
• Repeated wikilinks seem to be an issue.
• As of this revision ref #123 looks dead and 224 needs a subscription required template.
• Check image captions for compliance with MOS:CAPTION.
• "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated as the tourism industry's "next big thing"." You should probably note in text who said this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned Lonely Planet in text. And 123 fixed, 224 removed. September88 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Completed MOS:CAPTION check. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - there's currently an NPOV tag on the article that should be addressed before this review goes too much further. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, on the talk page, the tagger said he put it there because he thought one section was too small. As he didn't mention neutrality, I encouraged him to discuss his concerns about inadequate coverage or use an expand section template instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues were discussed at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 14#Bangladesh... the current version is according to the consensus. Actually editors suggest to reduce the redundancy further if possible. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am still highly dissatisfied with the meager coverage given to the events of 1971. It is by far one of the major events in the nations history, up to 3 million dead, up to 400,000 women raped, 25000 war babies, an economy destroyed, entire villages razed to the ground, the intellectual elite dragged from their homes and murdered, up to 10 million refugees fleeing to India and a further 30 million displaced. The partition of a nation is no small thing, and it needs considerable expansion. You quite simply cannot cover a genocide in a few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At the current rate, your aim seems to be geared towards making this article more about the Bangladesh Liberation War than even the Pakistan Movement itself. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreement with Mar4d. Pakistan's page is for summary of events and Bangladesh liberation has been covered enough in that respect already; infact it has the longest explanation in Republic section than any other event. So any further detail is completely unnecessary. Go to Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War to put details. September88 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been stable content since quite some time... it even stayed almost the same during the full overhaul of the article in last three months. New issues only started arising when intentions for FAC were put on article talk. See, for instance, the RFC about the failed state label, consensus on keeping that out of this article (that RFC delayed the FAC for a month). For the current issues too.. the talk page currently has due discussion where the consensus was to only include the no of causalities to this section (which has been done). This is completely comprehensive and as of now by-passes POV issues without going in much detail of them. Those dedicated articles are for those issues. This is a country article and going into details of each issue is completely inappropriate. Mentioning one view will require to present all clarifications or view points which will make the single incident really long. Even the campaign for the country's independence has been mentioned in a comprehensive way instead of lingering details. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you are both wrong, articles are meant to reflect what majority of sources say. Currently the genocide is a few brief lines, hardly enough to cover the events. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As TopGun says the number of casualties has been mentioned, according to the sources you are talking about, after due discussion on Talk Page. Now further expanding on basis of strong feelings of a user on this issue has no place here; the article has to be kept reasonable length. Now if you can please properly address all points raised by the three user in reply to your comment, then we can continue this discussion. September88 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The genocide which lead to the destruction of a nation currently has ten lines. The Media and entertainment is as follows, 9 lines for the TV station. 7 lines for music. So entertainment gets 16 lines, but a genocidal campaign which split the nation gets 10? Perhaps people ought to address my points as neither yourself or Mar4d have raised any. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: is this FAC going slow or this much time is normal before actual evaluation starts? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asked by TopGun to comment on this article. I probably won't provide a full review, but I'd like to offer the following comments on the basis of sections of the article I've selected more or less at random. I think that they indicate that the article is under-developed for FA status, so I'm leaning oppose. I'm shifting to full oppose due to serious problems with references not supporting the text as described below.

• An issue raised in regards to the India article a while ago is that while a high proportion of inhabitants of that country live in poverty and its overall level of economic development is fairly low, all the photos in the article depicted prosperous people and brand new buildings. This article appears to suffer from the same problem.
• The statement that "Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery" considerably over-simplifies the argument made in the supporting reference, which explicitly states that there's more to this than just whether the rulers of the country were elected or not and notes that the military rulers did a poor job of building economic capacity. I'm pretty sure that I've seen the opposite argument made as well.

This statement is a fact. Even if on short term basis and whatever the reasons behind such an occurrence, it remains that Growth rate has been faster in those periods as has been individually noted in the history "Independence" section with sources as well. The article at this point is not arguing in favor of one or other type of government, simply stating under the "economy Section" how economy has performed after independence, and a source which vouches this is given. So adding support or against arguments for reasons behind or speculation on capacity from source is unnecessary. Will change wording to exactly to "economic growth rate" if its still an issue September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The article states that, in essence, military governments have been good for the Pakistani economy when the source explicitly argues that things are more complicated than that. As such, this is one of the instances of the article misrepresenting its sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain again. Rough transcript from the source "Growth was relatively slow during the civilian rule in the 1950's under Zulfiqar Ali bhutto (1972-1977) and in the period (1988-200) under successive democratic governments. The two long periods of military rule under Ayub Kahn an d Zia ul Haq were periods of exceptional growth. The economy under General Musharraf has also seen remarkable recovery.

Now how exactly is the article's wording "Pakistan economic growth since its inception has been varied. Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery." misinterpreting the source?

Yes the source goes on to further explain that there are other reasons behind such variable rate as well. But the fact remains. I've further tweaked the lines to include that the foundation for sustainable and equitable growth was not formed during that time. I hope its clearer now, and more matching the source. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite being a very poor country in 1947, the growth rate has been better than the global average during the subsequent four decades, but slowed in the late 1990s." - the 'despite' seems unnecessary here; it's generally much easier for less-developed countries to grow at high rates than it is for developed countries as they have more unused capacity.

Its directly from the source itself, and despite is meant to show the good growth rate as it was a poor country not just less developed. Removing it will take out the meaning of the sentence.September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's been taken almost word from word from the source and is a copyright violation. I don't think that the 'Pakistan Trade Development Authority' is a reliable source (it's obviously not independent of the government and has an agenda to promote the Pakistani economy) as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Its almost similar because it explains some numbers, decades etc which can hardly to altered to avoid copy right or it'll not match the source; still it wasn't exactly similar to have copyright to have a banner it was explaining some stats not the countries views to be labeled on an agenda. Since I've removed the lines and source anyway debate is unnecessary. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated by Lonely Planet as the tourism industry's "next big thing"" - The source provided doesn't support this, and appears to actually say the opposite. It starts with a warning against travelling to Pakistan and actually states that "Pakistan has been on the brink of being tourism's ‘next big thing’ for more years than we care to remember", which means something quite different than what has been plucked out from it, and the rest of the page states that while there's lots to see in Pakistan, it's a risky place to visit. Many national governments warn against travel to Pakistan as well (for instance, Australia).

Fixed by a user according to source.September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP" - the source actually says that the transport sector represents this proportion of GDP.

Changed.September88 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The coverage of the country's military, science and technology and foreign relations hardly mentions the country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, despite these being important to all three topics. The material which does exist on these weapons is sourced to a Pakistani Government publication and reads like propaganda, despite this being a controversial topic ("The need for strategic balance in interest of security lead to Pakistan establishing itself as a nuclear power in the wake of India's nuclear tests. Despite pressure from the world, Pakistan maintains an independent stance to further nuclear development and purchase military weapons.")
• There's no material on Pakistani support for the Taliban prior to (and probably since) September 2001.

Taliban point has been answered by TopGun below. Science and technology, and Politics (military is a subdiviosn of politics) does clearly mentions the major nuclear program actually...what is the issue here...September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In anycase I've changed the wording to minimal deterrence policy in politics, which should alleviate any concerns as it encompasses any nuclear delivery systems like missiles. Naming specific missiles nuclear or no is undue here and belongs to their respective specific articles. As for the source, will re-check it as per RSA. RSA has not responded yet , but I've replaced it with BBC news source that transcripts the president's speech after the nuclear tests. September88 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The material on the Pakistani political system is very 'dry' and doesn't really give a feel for how politics works in this country.

All major factors of country's politics are explained. Foreign affairs as well as Administrative divisions and major political/geographic conflicts. It has basically all the material other FA country articles has in their political section. I'm not sure how or why any more detail is needed. The relevant articles are wiki linked if anyone wish for further details. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "and played a major role in rescuing trapped American soldiers from Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993 in Operation Gothic Serpent." - interesting for Americans, but a minor incident in Pakistani military history.

This is meant to show how Pakistan has been active in UN missions, and interms of Pakistan's contrition to UN, this is not a minor event. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just active, Pakistan has been one of the largest contributor to UN Forces and at times the largest contributor. And this is a well known Foreign/UN mission in Pakistan's military history. --SMS ^Talk 09:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments on sources:
  • "Ayub Khan's successor, General Yahya Khan (1969–71) had to deal with a devastating cyclone which caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan." - needs a reference
  • About.com isn't a reliable source
  • What makes http://www.gendercide.org a reliable source?
  • Tourist guidebooks shouldn't be used as general references
  • Globalsecurity.org isn't a reliable source (it republishes stuff hoovered up from all over the place, and is full of errors)
  • Few of the many references to PDF documents have page numbers to where the material cited is located
  • At least two of the books in the 'further reading' section are also used as references Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Pakistan has been successful in foreign trade by rail and has traded with countries such as Turkey and China." - the sources provided do not support this statement, and describe feasibility studies for possible rail links with China and Turkey rather than actual rail traffic.
• Something called "Draft: Role of Connectivity in Growth Strategy of Pakistan" is cited on four occasions. It's unlikely that a draft government report is a reliable source.

Why is it not reliable? Its from Planning Commission government of Pakistan and has given proper bibliography at the end, which includes independent books, renowned journals and international forums as sources. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• What appears to be the main reference for the statement that "This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan") is mainly focused on the period since 1998, and states that the problematic level of corruption hasn't changed much over this time. To the extent that it has material on the Bhutto and Sharif governments, it says that they were seen as being about as corrupt as the governments which have followed them. As such, it contradicts the implication that this was a period of unusually high corruption.

""This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan")"

Two sources have been given for this statement which both explains the three factors which were highlight of that period. Yes the corruption problem remains but the point is no other government has the problem as a highlight as the governments during 1990-1999.

Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan, clearly says that the 1990's-1999 government were dissolved on misgovernence or corruption charges. That the succeeding government actually managed to reduce the corruption, and cases were filed against the 1990s governments on corruption charges. Yes it says that the corruption indicators have fell again, which pertains to current government, as their tenure is still remaining, expanding their highlights comes in recentism. If the whole report is read its obvious that the 1990s period has been most involved in corruption.

The second source which I've linked now, explains the economy of country since its inception and apart from general overview, the 1990s is the only period about which corruption charges have been specifically mentioned which indicates again that the highlight of those government was corruption. SO I don't see how the sources aren't matching with text here. 2ndly if there is still an issue I can refernce links which tells that Pakistan ranked 2nd, 5th, and 11th, in annual reports on the most corrupt countries in the world between 1996 and 1998, and that ranking has not fell so sharply in other decades. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the sources I've spot checked as part of these comments (which I generally selected on the grounds that they appeared questionable) have not supported the text in the article or do no appear to be reliable sources. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide the other sources you consider unreliable as well and why, so we can check and replace with them better? September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the sources I've specified as part of my review. However, given that several of the sources said the exact opposite to the text in the article they were referenced to, I have serious concerns about all the sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Which several sources say exact opposite things? The ones you've pointed out I've explained, and while there are points that can be debated, no source has said exact opposite of the text. In any case I've simply tweaked/removed the objectionable lines, and references. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • Before I start checking out the issues pointed out, I'll specify that the alleged support for Taliban (both before and after 9/11) has been contested by Pakistan and is a very controversial topic in itself... this was discussed at [2] and the consensus was to exclude the specific details from this article and rather mention the US relations over it which are stated as: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." Including the details in this article will open a Pandora's box. definitely not comprehensive then. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  Added image related to poverty in Pakistan. This image will rotate with other skyline images to keep in balance. [3] --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Adding an image which, if I read the code correctly, will only be shown to one in three readers while the other two thirds of readers get images showing modern buildings is hardly 'balance' given Pakistan's actual economic situation. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The other two images depict different arenas as well in their own context instead of just brand new buildings (see the discussion on the talk page for reference)... but the actual point being, the text along side the image does state that the economic condition isn't this bad. Also, I didn't seem to find more images of the sort (though will keep looking) - poverty in Pakistan article had only this - due to lack of coverage. I'll see if any of the other users can upload one. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  Further Reading books replaced. September88 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  Added clarifications to images tagged by CMD. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  All PDF references have been updated with page numbers per pdf opener recognition, as some of them do not have page numbers written in the documents. September88 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Nick-D on the Taliban issue, at least for the period before 9/11. It should be mentioned like the support to the mujahideen is mentioned. The support before 9/11 isn't really contested.
• Gendercide is a reliable source as it is run by the renowned genocide scholar Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) who has written one of the leading academic textbooks on the issue, and lectured at Yale University.

JCAla (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at RSN to further verify the sources objected on. The point on Taliban is moot as it will not get any consensus on talk page like before. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the article may not be sufficiently stable for FA status. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion I pointed out in my first reply shows that this was long over and the related content is pretty stable. I've corrected some of the issues you pointed out. Will also be removing the references. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite telling that support to the mujahideen is mentioned (because it seems acceptable) but the support (at least the one up until 9/11 in which according to experts such as Ahmed Rashid 80,000-100,000 Pakistanis were fighting alongside the Taliban) is consistently tried to be removed from history. I think we can find two consensus sentences similar to the one on the Taliban article such as "From 1994-2001 Pakistan's military provided support to the Taliban while Islamabad followed an official policy of denial. Pakistan stands widely accused of continuing the support today which it denies." JCAla (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said... this is said to be undue in the country's history. Try a thread on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Why does the picture in the economy section have to be about poverty or related to an image showing a slum? I think a more neutral option would be something related to agriculture for example a picture of a rural farm etc. This would also be more relevant and representative, since rural agriculture dominates and is a backbone of Pakistan's economy. I really don't see any economic significance in a picture of a slum, TBH. Mar4d (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's more reasonable... replacing it with 2 rural images (in the switch) would do better than urban slums. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Added a sentence on the Balochistan conflict as that was obviously missing. JCAla (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment "Sepoy Mutiny, was the region's last major armed struggle against the British Raj" First, the sentence is probably technically wrong, as British Raj started after the Sepoy Mutiny. Second, if this was the last, which was the first? Did any other armed struggles occur before this? I mean Sepoy Mutiny is sometimes dubbed as first war of independence. Is it really the last? Are you emphasizing "major armed struggle"? What is the scale of "major" in that case? Is the "major" only in terms of number of people died, or, does it also involve the political/historical significance? If the number of casualties is not the only measure of "major"ness, then there were other armed revolts or acts. So, wordings may need to be modified here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also, "...it laid the foundations for the largely non-violent freedom struggle ". Sepoy Mutiny laid the foundation of the later non-violent freedom-struggle? Can you please provide a reference for this? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lines to be better and add two additional refs. The refs hav in detail the armed movements before 1857's. September88 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of a Muslim majority and geography, the same principles that were applied for the creation of the two independent states. First, the source does not mention "Geography" as the basis of Pakistan's claim over Kashmir. Second, what makes this source ("Zakat Foundation of America, a Muslim charity...") a reliable source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed the source with more reliable sources. --SMS ^Talk 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, source is better now. It seems after reading the sentences that Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of geography and Muslim majority, and India on the basis of instrument of accession. However, India's claim is also on the basis of Geography. Indeed, if you have to include Geography as the basis of claim, both country's claim should include geography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Observation. Despite the fifth-most spoken language among six main languages in the country (source:Pakistan census), Urdu is the national language of the country. Is there any reason behind it? If thre is, it may be interesting to mention. (not a requirement for FA, just an incidental observation).--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason is already mentioned in the same sentence, it is the lingua franca. Muslim heritage should also have been mentioned.. do you want me to expand on it? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually Urdu was considered in pre-independence period India, as Muslim's language and a symbol of unity among Muslims because of the Hindi–Urdu controversy. So after independence Muslim League leaders who were supporting Urdu before partition preferred it to be the national language instead of Bengali, Punjabi or any other regional language. And provinces were given choice to choose their own language[4]. --SMS ^Talk 08:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what I meant by heritage, added your source and this info. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment As of this version, the article still says The transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP despite being pointed out in FAC that it is transport "sector" not infrastructure.

Also, The road infrastructure is better than the ones of India and China... The source (a draft from planning commission of Pakistan government) does not tell that road infrastructure is better than China.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the word to sector per source, didn't notice how it got back.. fixed it now. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment.

• Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy. For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan, that brought international recognition in its achievements, and became a major component of Pakistan's national policy.

In the source (page 9, as mentioned in the reference) provided, I did not find anything that suggests "Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy". If you have used some sentences from the source to frame these two sentences in the article, please quote from the source (maybe quote within citation, not in the body of the article).

Also, "For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan", completely OR (on the basis of source provided). The source does not say anything about Pakistan's national policy either.

*In modern time, the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy, Ishfaq Ahmad, and Riazudding played a crucial development in particle and theoretical physics.

What is "modern time"?

*Pakistan also produced the world class mathematicians such as Asghar Qadir and Raziuddin Siddiqui where their research played a crucial advancement in mathematical physics.

Weasel word (world class); also wrong grammar.

* Munir Ahmad Rashid became the first Pakistani mathematician to provide the another theoretical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 2008

Source does not verify this information. Source is just a schedule of this person's speech on Fermat's last theorem, during a conference in Dreamland Hotel of Islamabad.

• Salimuzzaman Siddiqui was the first Pakistani scientist to bring the anthelmintic, antifungal, antibacterial, and antiviral constituents of the Neem tree to the attention of natural products chemists. He was preceded by Atta ur Rahman, UNESCO laureate, and Naveed Zaidi, organic chemist being the first scientist to developed first workable plastic magnet at room temperature

Citations needed for both sentences. Wrong grammar in the second sentence. Why does it say "He was preceeded by..?" Salimuzzaman was preceded by the two other scientists? Preceded in what?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked. September88 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

*Each and every year, scientists from all over the world are invited by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences and the Pakistan Government to participate in International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics, one of the largest seminar in Physics and Mathematics

The source provided (an address by the prime minister) does not support the claims "scientists from all over the world", and "one of the largest seminar" (bye the way, one of the largest of where? of Pakistan? of world?).

• Naweed Syed became the first scientist who managed to "connect brain cells to a silicon chip"

Does not seem to be a notable person. Better source required, not just his lab page from the university.

I've added an independent source as well to prove nobility. September88 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

*In 1998, due to amid domestic and international pressure, Pakistan became first Muslim majority and seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapons

First, grammar wrong. Second, Pakistan had "international" pressure to develop nuclear weapon? Some other country was telling Pakistan to build it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 All the above concerns have been dealt with. Refs add and tweaks/cuts made to text. September88 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Not ready to be FA yet. Rationale as follows:

Criteria 1a. The prose is below standard for FA. I have given a few examples of grammar weakness, weasel words etc in my comments above.

1b. I am not sure about comprehensiveness as several discussions are going on (in article talk page or elsewhere) on inclusion of different topics, such as Balochistan insurgency, Taliban etc.

1c. Definitely NOT well-researched, and this is a major point of oppose. As User:Nick-D has pointed out above, the article indeed had opposite to what was stated in the source. Sometimes, the source does not mention what is stated in the article. This has led to decreased credibility of the article. Additionally, there is multiple reliable source issue.

1d. Neutrality -- I am not sure, as discussions on inclusion of different topics are ongoing.

1e. Stability -- yet not very stable.

Criteria 2. Does not follow WP:MoS properly. Some instances of year ranges not using mdash (inflation rate for the fiscal year 2010-11...) Single page reference sometimes uses "pp.". The article uses random capitalisation in words inside citations. For example, a randomly-chosen citation says, "Obituary: Munir Khan Dies; Developed Pakistan Bomb Project." This should be "Obituary: Munir Khan dies; developed Pakistan bomb project."

Another random example from within the text : For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan. Why the "s" of Scientific is in capital. Similar example are there in the part of the article that I read.

Best of luck. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• While I applaud the nominators for working on such a large topic, I must regretfully Oppose this article's promotion to featured status. It looks like the prose is not at featured quality, some examples:
• "Pakistan is the first Muslim country in the world to embrak on a nuclear power program. [202]"
• "The national sport of Pakistan is hockey which has earned it 8 of it's 10 Olympic medals"
• "The well-known representatives of the contemporary Urdu literature of Pakistan includes Faiz Ahmed Faiz.Sadequain is known for..."
• "At national level, football and Polo are prominent sports..."
• I suggest contacting some copyeditors, the WP:GOCE could probably help, to go over the whole article--it's easy to overlook small things on a large article like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is adding {{done}} templates? Please remove them. See WP:FAC instructions: they create errors in the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced them with the text versions and escaped yours. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Moral support, but ... This is a huge article on a huge subject, but too many problems remain.
• Linking and prose is erratic; take these two sentences: "The southern plains are home to Jackal, mongoose, jungle cat, civet cat, scaly anteater, desert cat, the wild hare and crocodiles in the Indus while boars, deer, porcupines, and small rodents are common in the surrounding areas. The sandy scrublands of central Pakistan are home to a jackals, hyenas, wild cats, panthers, and leopards." No caps needed for "Jackal", which is linked in both sentences, and is preceded by an ungrammatical "a" in the second. Four species of cat are mentioned; only one is linked, and that to the wrong article - it should go to Asiatic Wildcat, the local sub-species, not Wildcat. It looks to me as if what Pakistan has are not "Desert cats" (aka African wildcat) but Sand cats, though I accept local terms may differ. "Deer" is not very helpful; from List of mammals of Pakistan there only seem to be 2 species (excluding antelopes & gazelles), so why not name them? Actually it seems questionable whether there are any Kashmir stag left in Pakistan, and the White-bellied Musk Deer is endangered - both are rare animals of the northern mountains, so probably the antelopes & gazelles are what is meant here. Again, local terms may differ, but in that case careful linking is all the more important. With the proper links we would see which animals are actually meant. Of the 29 species of porcupine, over several continents, Pakistan has only the Indian Crested Porcupine. And so on.
• The article is over 152,000 bytes, and slow to load and edit. It should be at the upper size limit, but is this too big? Especially as one imagines many local readers have slow connections.
• On the whole it seems reasonably balanced, & I think the coverage of the breakaway of Bangladesh acceptable. But I think the "failed state" concept needs addressing, as do the pretty scary economic implications of projected population growth.

Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as the failed state index is concerned an RFC held on the talk page concluded that this was already in the article in terms of the issues being faced and mention of the index was completely undue. About the article size, yes that is near the upper limit but I guess within? Local connections aren't dial up any more :) ...but we're working on reducing it by merging the Kashmir conflict section. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The basic linking, grammar & other points above are still not addressed. This was a passage picked more or less at random for detailed scrutiny & I suspect much of the article needs a good and careful going-over. The nom is over 3wks old & there haven't been many edits in the last week, so I agree with Regents Park below. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I can see that there are some issues in the article. While September88 and TopGun are working on these, I also intend to be working round the clock to address some of these. Once these general issues (many of which are simply based on grammar, length and prose) are addressed, I do not see anything that could hinder this otherwise well-covered article from achieving FA status. Mar4d (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: as nominator and per all the issues fixed in last peer review and sorting done during this discussion which corrects or addresses the points raised. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As still no mention of Pakistan support for the Taliban in the article. Also the article should mention that Pakistan has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world, and that new born children have only a 1 in 4 chance of survival. This is due to only 1% of GDP being assigned to healthcare. The Handbook of Global Health Communication & Breakdown in Pakistan: How Aid Is Eroding Institutions for Collective Action as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd really like to support featured status for this article but I don't think it is ready yet. For one, it needs extensive copy editing and don't see that happening. I also think that the article needs to be carefully whetted for neutrality issues (for example, the clickable map of provinces labels the entire Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as "conflict zone"). Other than that, I think the article is reasonably comprehensive and complete and is on the cusp of featured status. Perhaps the article could be taken out of the FAC process (or the process suspended) for a bit, the article copy edited and whetted for neutrality (I would love to do this when I have some more time), and then resubmitted for featured status. --regentspark (comment) 12:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.