Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan/archive1

• • Linked.
• "in country's history " the country's history.
  • Done.
• Is it " Pakistan Peoples Party" or " Pakistan People's Party"?
  • Changed.
• "Birth–Death" no need for capital D on Death.
  • Done.
• What does "portrait" mean when half the images are flags?
  • Flags removed.
• Why are the flags right-aligned?
  • As above.
• Check use of en-dash in the full date ranges, e.g. should "7 October 1958–7 December 1971" really be "7 October 1958 – 7 December 1971"?
  • Done.
• "from 1970 till 1972" "...to 1972".
  • Fixed.
• "the first woman elected" the "first woman" link here is a little bit
  WP:EASTEREGG
  for me.
  • Done.
• "under the article 58-2b," no need for "the" here.
  • Removed.
• Don't SHOUT in the refs, e.g. check ref 53.
  • Fixed.
• New York Times should be The New York Times.
  • Done.
• Who is the publisher of The Dawn?
  • Done. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the timeline meets
  WP:ACCESS
  since you're only using colours for certain properties.
  • Still not sure about this one how to deal with this?
    • Colours should not be used alone to convey a property. You need to use symbols in addition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "during the Operation Fair Play in " -> "during Operation FairPlay"...
  • According to our article at Wikipedia
    • No, don't have "the" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is it possible to delink "Post Abolished" in the "Timeline" section? Or simply remove "Post Abolish" and just leave a black line (as you have the key describing what it means)
    • Done.
  • Is it possible to cut File:Mujib-Suhra.gif, to avoid the noting who is who? Also that picture could be bigger.
    • Done.
  • You could include the original title of non-English sources.
    • No, I would prefer this one, for consistency.
  • Ref 6, should be "Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh" according to Gbooks
    • Done.
  • Ref 7, should be "Pakistan: Zia and After". There may be more such mistakes.--
    Tomcat (7) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Done and thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against

Fixed the references, decapitalised the words, the colours I used are actually party colours and the symbols are now accessable. Zia Khan 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have elected by the National Assembly". Needs "been" after "have".
  • This should be "been", not "baen" as the article has now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the photo caption in the lead, is "flag" missing? "Standard of the Prime Minister of Pakistan" doesn't make much sense on its own.
• Prime Ministers: In the Liaquat Ali Khan entry: "presented" needs capitalization as the first word of its sentence.
• Period after the last word of that entry shouldn't have a space before it.
• Muhammad Ali Bogra: Note could use "A" at the start. Also, the "a" later in the first sentence could be removed.
  • These issues both remain. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now "Relatively" needs decapitalization. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for that, fixed now. Zia Khan 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nurul Amin: First comma should be a semi-colon instead.
• "leading Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." Needs "the" after "in".
• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Decapitalize "Nuclear".
• Muhammad Khan Junejo: Replace "also" with "the".
• Benazir Bhutto: Decapitalize second word of "Muslim World" and add "the" before it. Three other words need decapitalization in the next sentence of this note.
• Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi: Here, "Caretaker" doesn't need the capitalization. Same for Balakh Sher Mazari, Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi, and Malik Meraj Khalid.
  • The capitalization is still there in Khalid's entry, although it's gone from the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Mazari's note, the last word should also be decapitalized.
• Also, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized in Khalid's note.
• Nawaz Sharif: "Sharif was re-elected as Prime Minister the exclusive mandate from all over the Pakistan...". Needs a re-write. I'd tell you how, but am not entirely sure what the meaning is. Was it that he had a mandate from Pakistanis?

• His party won 137 seats out of 207. Zia Khan 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Drop "the" from "from all over the Pakistan" and it should be workable now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, "Government" again needs de-capitalization in this note.
• "and the Martial law was imposed in the entire country." First "the" isn't needed and can be removed without affecting meaning or ruining the grammar. I actually think this is grammatically better without the first "the".
• Shaukat Aziz: "who left seat after completion of parliamentary term." Needs "the" before "seat".
• Yousaf Raza Gillani: "Gillani was elected after in March 2008 after the elections." There's an excess "after", but I'm curious as to how he could be elected after elections. Wouldn't he have been elected in the elections?
• In ref 30, instead of having "pp. 1657 onwards", it would be better to just give a page range, even if it's a large one. Also, there is a double period that just having a regular range would fix.
• The ISBN isn't showing up as a link in ref 40.
• A page number would be nice for ref 48, in case the book ever gets pulled from Google Books. I know the page numbers that are avaliable for previewing can change over time.
  • Still needs a page number, if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are also inconsistencies over whether one of the websites is titled History of Pakistan or Story of Pakistan. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved, thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs #4 #8, #13, #45 have no publisher information; check for others too
• Ref #20 is incomplete, there are a few more
• Formatting error not showing ISBN in ref #40; publisher=Google Books?

• Then what should be the publisher here? Zia Khan 06:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxford University Press. Also the date is wrong. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed, this is alreardy covered with ref at the end. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dawn -> Dawn (newspaper)
• Publisher for Dawn should be "Pakistan Herald Publications"
• Does "insider.pk" qualify as
  WP:EL
  ?
• For continuous page nos. i.e., pages=1657 onwards. it should be formatted as pages=1657–
• You've linked BBC News in refs #1, #9 and #21 but not in others
• I'm concerned about the reliability of "storyofpakistan.com", a majority of the article depends upon it.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been resolved. Of course, storyof pakistan.com is a reliable cite , thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not convinced. In what do you say it's reliable? is it a govt. published source or a site run by some reputed news agencies. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a govt cite which publishes the political history of Pakistan. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely not a Govt-owned website. The domain should be ".pk" if it's a site maintained by the Pak Govt. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a govt cite or mainained by the govt, I don't know, I only know that this is reliable one. Look at the lis at ru:Wikipedia and why do you think that this is unreliable? Zia Khan 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really up to the reviewer to prove a source unreliable, more it's up to you to prove it is reliable. And whatever goes on at Russian Wikipedia is really irrelevant to our own quality standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How can I prove that it is reliable or not? I can only say that it is Pakistani political website. Zia Khan 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at our policy on
  reliable sources. It gives you some ideas on what constitutes such. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Than its reliability is proved, have a look here and here. Zia Khan 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links I provided and this one say exactly what

WP:RSN. Zia Khan 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see any reliability of the work itself or the creators. None of them look like professional editors. Looks like a self-publishing source. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "source" as

used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." This is the definition of a source, and what is a self-publishing source? Zia Khan 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I've replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". I hope this'll be sufficient to convince you! Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a Prime Minister"
• "He, during his two terms, remained in the office for the longest period." Think this sentence could be more specific and worded better, would say how long he was in office
• "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947 ," no space between 1947 and comma
• "on Kashmir conflict" the after on
• "He made the constitution of Pakistan..." Did he make it himself? I doubt this, needs rewording for accuracy
  • Fixed all! Zia Khan 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 7, should be Pakistan: Zia and After
  • Ref 8 does not include the title you noted ("Muhammad Khan Junejo Becomes Prime Minister (1985–88))
  • Ref 14, title should be " Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Is Pakistan's New Prime Minister "
  • Ref 16, should be Pakistan: The Eye of the Storm
  • Ref 17, should be Pakistan in Crisis, publisher is Psychology Press
  • Ref 18, put the date (20 November 2011)
  • Ref 19, add the date (1 June 2003)
  • Ref 42, title should be Pakistan: The Struggle Within, what you indicated is a chapter (user chapter= and put it there)
  • Ref 46, ditto
  • Ref 58, nowhere do I see the date 21 October 2012, but rather "Last Updated: Friday, July 30, 2004"
  • How reliable is Story of Pakistan?--
    Tomcat (7) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Fixed all! Replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]