Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Pakistan Army/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

History of the Pakistan Army

I wrote this article from scratch. I think its pretty good and very encompassing of the subject matter. -- Mercenary2k | Talk 4:43 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • comment fair use rationale needs to be applied to image of nuclear test (To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information). Great article definately worthy of FAC status once image copyright resolved Gnangarra 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I got that image of that nuclear test from the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction page. I overlooked the fact that this image didn't have the proper credentials. I have decided to remove that image.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 8:06 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Oppose The lead paragraph is far too short, and the history section needs to be turned into paragraphs. Thesre are FAR too many sub sections with just one or two sentences underneath. Those must be either expanded or condensed. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Objection 2c. It looks well written and comprehensive in good Wikipedia format. The editors should be proud of the work so far. However, it's impossible to support this nomination with only two external links, no bibliography, and no line citations at all. Take a few months, track down the sources, and renominate. I wish you well. Regards, Durova 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI spend around 2 weeks writing this article. It appears that my claim that this article was ready to become a Featured Article was premature. Please, keep telling me what is wrong with this article. I will work to improve this article and then re-admit this article to be considered as a Featured Article.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 2:14 AM, March 5, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Comment- for such a large article, the lead should be expanded to a maximum of 3 paragraphs to cover a brief overview of the subject. AndyZ 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object - too much POV. Rama's Arrow 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Lot of holes including lack of references for some contentious statements. e.g. Casualty figures for the Kargil War section hardly mentions the sources for Pakistani estimates and misquotes saying "India claims that Pakistani backed forces lost around 4,000 men" when that figure was mentioned by a ex-PM of Pakistan. This sections is also too long given that the main article discusses exhaustively on the subject. Also traces of POV visible. Idleguy 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, with all due regards to the editors involved in the creation of the page, I request that the page is still not mature and comprehensive in its treatment and coverage of the topic to become a featured article. All sections require further fine tuning, including its role in extinguishing and killing the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, and usurping the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan in its control; and its role in damaging the peace and prosperity of the Indian subcontinent, human right violations and war crimes during the freedom struggle of Bangladesh. The promotional tone at the beginning of the article should be replaced by a more encyclopedia tone. --Bhadani 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since that figure came from a deposed Prime Minister, I don't beleive it. The only reason you (Idleguy) are accepting is as fact because it shows a very high casualty figure on the Pakistan side. If Sharif said 400 instead of 4000, then lets see if you would have defended this statement as vehemently as you would have otherwise. And to Rama's Arrow, care to elaborate on where there is too much POV, give me some glaring examples. By the way, funny isn't it that most of the non-indian posters have made comments about the strucutre, grammer, references, etc, to improve the page, where as the indians have basically railed against this page's nomination on the simple pretences that it is a pakistani article. Sad. Mercenary2k 9:38 AM March 6, 2006
What about PPP sources and other non-Indian sources that reiterate the same figure? It's not your belief in Sharif/Bhutto that matters but objective reporting of facts. Non Indian/Pakistani posters might not have the same knowledge about the subcontinent's geopolitical facts as someone from the region so it is expected that they might restrict their critic to the fringe aspects. You should expect some criticism on this subject matter if you desire improvement. I made comments that Pakistan article should become FA soon on the lines of other South Asian nation articles and it is slowly going in that direction. What do we have against improvement of any article, be it Pakistani, Indian or otherwise? Please take criticism constructively. Thanx. Idleguy 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi M2K - You are wronging Idleguy - he is talking references while you insist on focusing on prejudice. As to the article, my case for too-much POV arises from the simple fact that there are no in-line citations when you make the assertions that India's weakness was proven true, that Pakistan's case fell on deaf ears in the U.S., etc. All assertions like this need to be cited. When you don't, what is preventing me or anyone else in thinking this article as loaded with POV? You should Move to Peer Review. It is your own mistake to hastily push your work into FAc.

I'm sorry but your attitude will not help you anywhere. Know this, that when you do the right thing here - add info according to Wikipedia guidelines/policies and with direct references, no one will thwart your work. Please learn to accept criticism - 99% of times it is not directed at you or your country. Rama's Arrow 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Ok I admit. I rushed this article to be considered a featured article. I should have put this article through a peer review to shake out the flaws. But why don't you guys help with this article. If you think it needs improvement, then make some changes to it. Mercenary2k March 6, 2006, 10:32 AM
  • Comment I think you jumped a little to quickly on the personal defensive, we only want to help. I can see some small grammatical changes, minor format changes, and POV neutralising. It's just that my knowldege of the subject is restricted basically to what you have put in the article. To dive in and be bold on an article that will achieve FAC could actually set the process backwards by creating inaccuracies. I have left a couple of suggestions on your talk page Gnangarra 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am gonna get the proper references. All of the info which I typed here came from me. I didn't use a book or anything since I have a good knowledge on this subject matter. But to back up all the info and neutralize the argument of POV, I will get the proper references, citiations, notes, etc from proper and neutral sources. It will probably be a week or 2 before I have gotten all the info from neutral sources. Mercenary2k March 6, 2006, 10:53 AM
  • Move to Peer Review per above. This is a contentious article and without appropriate in-line citations there will be a lot of POV-based objections. Even after we tie up the lose ends during PR, I think realistically, you're looking at quite a battle during FAC. AreJay 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest peer review. Way to much POV (on a quick lookover, "After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan switched sides and became involved in helping the United States military in tracking and eliminating militants associated with Al Qaeda in neighbouring Afghanistan." outright says they were aiding terrorists beforehand), and you have two history sections that are to "Present". Staxringold 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article lacks references and there is a lot of POV. Despite sterling performance from the Pakistan Air Force who outperformed their Indian counterparts: is there any credible evidence of this? Even though IAF lost more aircraft than PAF during the war, that doesn't mean the latter outperformed the former. IAF had carried out assault missions against well-defenced military bases deep inside Pak territory while PAF was involved only in air support operations. --Spartian 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_Pakistan_Army/archive1&oldid=1054789579"