Wikipedia:Peer review/Muhammad Ali Jinnah/archive1

Muhammad Ali Jinnah edit

Hi - I request the participation and help of all in an effort to improve this article and make it an FA. It has a lot of good data, but there are also serious problems of loaded POV, un-encyclopedic language and text and unverified information. There are also issues regarding the appropriate spelling of Jinnah's name. I ask all contributors to please work according to Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed

IMO, the sections "Jinnah in the eyes of his contemporaries" is wholly unencyclopedic and unnecessary. The "Modern views of Jinnah" section must be much smaller, concise and factual critical evaluation of Jinnah's views, actions and modern criticism. There is a lot of POV and factuality problems in these sections. I hope we can effectively iron out these issues. Rama's Arrow 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saying and Quotes section should be removed after being moved to Wikiquotes. CG 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Why not organize criticisms of Jinnah into a "Criticisms" section, like Che_Guevara#Criticism? You could also add a timeline and create a "Legacy" section for the less critical material from "Modern views on Jinnah" (especially all the stuff under "A new understanding of Jinnah and partition" and "A secular Jinnah"). The article needs significant copyediting — I've done some as an example. But overall, the writing is not too bad (not nearly as bad as at Fidel Castro or Cuba, for example). Saravask 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a "Modern views of Jinnah" that succintly and soberly establishes criticism and appraisals of Jinnah. However I'm sure citations and more detail is necessary. Rama's Arrow 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite good and covers almost everything I would think would be needed, not knowing the subject. Most troubling is the lead stating "distinguished" when it would be better to simply supply the various things that make him distinguished, such as honors, accolades, etc. When looking in his 'Early life' section for what made him distinguished, I pretty much just see more statements saying he was skilled and respected, but few to no facts backing it up. The rest of the first lead paragraph discusses how popular he is, but ignores the other side of what is covered in 'Modern views on Jinnah'. Also after the early life section there is very little on him as a person, entirely focusing on his work. While that is mostly warranted given his position and why he is important, it goes a bit too far. The modern views section refers to "non-religious personal behavior." but nowhere can I find that elaborated. Finally it is stated that his "birthplace and date of birth are disputed; however, it is generally believed that...", but only one source is cited, and certainly not one that would rank high as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So try to get a hold of a couple very reliable sources and use those to cite the article. With reasonable effort the article could be a FA soon. - Taxman ^Talk 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Also, there is no question of citing some books specifically written about Jinnah alone? It seems odd that all the citations come from books written about Indian politicians who mostly opposed Jinnah — this is like writing a biography on the Dalai Lama using only info gleaned from books on Mao Zedong or Zhou Enlai. This proxy sourcing is probably what underlies the issues of comprehensiveness and sourcing raised by Taxman. If you can't get hold of any books, use Google Scholar to get info. Also, still needs a light copyedit for flow and to remove padded wording/bulky phrasing. Saravask 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Saravask 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any access to books on Jinnah, which is why I've had to rely on websites and Patel's biography. But I take exception to your view that there is something inherently flawed about using Patel's biography - I've only used the facts, not imported Gandhi's POV. While there should be a book on Jinnah as a direct reference, and I will use Google scholar, I don't think there is anything wrong with the citations provided from Patel's bio - a source is a source. Rama's Arrow 12:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, all sources are not created equal. Some are much higher quality than others and some are much more appropriate to back up certain facts rather than others. It's explained fairly well in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Taxman ^Talk 13:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said a "reliable source is a reliable source." In any case, I don't think there is a problem with Patel's biography being a source, even as there is a need for a book on Jinnah to be primary ref. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]