Wikipedia:Peer review/Ishaq Dar/archive1

Ishaq Dar edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article which I would like to bring up-to GA status.

Thanks, Saqib (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheMagikCow edit

Per WP:MOSLEAD, the citations should be removed from the lead section and added to the relevant sections in the text. The lead should summarise the article and should not state any information that is not repeated and covered in more depth in the text; the citations are thus more appropriate in the text.
Sourcing looks good to me apart from one (small) point. There are lots of news articles as sources, and very few have the journalists name with them. I have seen that some, like the DAWN sources, do not give the name but I am sure some do.
An image of the politician would be nice, but I am no expert on files and fair use etc; this may not be possible.
A listing at WP:GOCE may be favourable to tighten up some of the prose - or the GA reviewer may also help with this.

Apart from this - it does look like a good article covering the topic in good depth. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow: thank you for reviewing this. I've removed the references from lead and moved them to relevant sections. I think the lead summarize the article well but if you see otherwise, please let me know. I will try to fix it. I've added missing author names in news piece references. A free licensed photo has been added. Couldn't found any better. I'm not good at CE so I have made a request at WP:GOCE. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any other major issues here. Perhaps a little more detail about what he did in office - but if there is none that it not a problem if nothing notable happened. Apart from that it's all OK I think! Great job and I do wish you all the best at GA; and if you need any help just give me a {{ping}}! TheMagikCow (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow: Regarding what he did in office, I wonder whether this is what you meant? --Saqib (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2016, the IMF confirmed that Pakistan's economy was 'out of crisis' [1] According to the World Bank, poverty in Pakistan fell from 64.3% in 2002 to 29.5% in 2014.[2] Pakistan's fiscal position continues to improve as the budget deficit has fallen from 6.4% in 2013 to 4.3% in 2016.[3][4] The country's improving Macroeconomic position has led to Moody's upgrading Pakistan's debt outlook to "stable".[5]

Its just a case of if there are any more details about what he did in office: policies, speeches and stuff like that. If there are none - don't worry. It is just that a GA has to be comprehensive so any major omissions would be a fail. The text you gave does not really fit in the scope - the artciles don't mention him specifially. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I couldn't find anything substantial that mention the subject of article. --Saqib (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow: copyediting has been done on this article [6]. What do you think of it? --Saqib (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - I think all should be in order at GA. I can see no obvious reason for a failure there. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow: Thank you for your time giving it a review. could you please close this peer review request for me. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]