Talk:National symbols of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National symbols of Pakistan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article National symbols of Pakistan has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.


[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead should be shortened. This is a relatively brief article, and so it does not need a two paragraph lead. Additionally, the information on the heroes of Pakistan should be described in the prose of the article since they are mentioned in the lead; if they are not described in the prose, they should not be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. There are also some sentence fragments in the text, which I took the liberty of correcting.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I have placed a :{{Fact}} tag in the body of the article where I think additional citations are necessary.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    It is recommended that images be staggered and spaced out a little bit better (i.e., [:Image:Minar-e-Pakistan, Lahore.jpg] is jammed up on [:Image:Working Committee.jpg], but other images have adequate spacing between them.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am putting the article on hold pending the above mentioned corrections. jackturner3 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I have addressed the image concern by replacing te Minar image with a smaller image and placed it next to the relevant paragraph but aligned left. I will attempt to address the other issues later today. Green Giant (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the delay in addressing these issues (been busy at work). The lead is now shorter and makes no extended mention of the national heroes. The citation that was needed is covered by an existing citation (Archnet.org). Hope that covers everything. Green Giant (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delays from the GAN side here, too. As Jack hasn't replied, I'm going to assume he's on a wikibreak and reply in his absence. Thank you for the improvements to the lead and additional citations. It is an improvement, but I think there's a tiny bit more to do to get this to GA status. Similar to the heroes, the bird, animal, flower and tree symbols should be mentioned somewhere—just in an extra "Minor symbols" section that specifies what each one is and, if possible, when and why each was chosen. Also, if in your opinion Pakistan's heroes are considered "National symbols", then in order to meet the criteria for board coverage, they should have a section as well.
Again, apologies for the delays and the annoyance of now having a second reviewer. I hope you agree that this process will ultimately lead to a better article. --jwandersTalk 16:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an action should be taken on this article very soon. The nominator, the first reviewer, and the second reviewer have all drifted away. As I see it, it could probably be passed right now anyway. I'll take the liberty of doing so quite soon if no one objects. Noble Story (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think all that all concerns have been addressed, so, in the absence of other reviewers, I'm going to pass this article.