GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this soon. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments. Pinging Atsme too as she seems to be interested in this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General

History

Knocked off some of the above by special:diff/724253892 YBG (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got the rest of it done. On to the next batch. Atsme📞📧 01:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government and public services

@Atsme: Mentioning the services of the Edhi Foundation is not "promotional of private sector services" as the foundation is in the non-profit sector, comparable to St. John's Ambulance in many countries. That doesn't eliminate the need for WP:RS. YBG (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YBG my concern is that it's non-governmental, lacks WP:RS, and doesn't exactly fit in the law enforcement section. It's better suited for the Healthcare section. I also don't think it would prove helpful if we started listing all the non-governmental services that are offered in the city. SCDG Faisalabad-Health oversees community health needs, and provides free emergency treatment, preventative care, ambulance services, etc. Atsme📞📧 06:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme fair enough, I just wanted to note that 'private' didn't apply. YBG (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • Could the measurement say exactly how higher than a thousand feet those deposits are? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary modifications were made for various reasons. Atsme📞📧 18:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Economy

  • I removed much of this section as there simply aren't any WP:RS available to support the information that was originally included. Atsme📞📧 06:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

Culture

Recreation

Education

Media

References

  • All the above is complete. Will work on refs. Atsme📞📧 23:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I see that the nominator, SRandaall, is away since April 2016. I have sought help for this at WP:WikiProject Pakistan. You too may wish to help here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Sainsf you can count me in but please give me a day to wrap-up some loose ends on a BLP I just created. Atsme📞📧 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, the review can remain open as long as activity is going on. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up, Smsarmad. I thought I would check the references after they became a bit more readable, but this is going to be a major problem if a lot of unreliable material is going to be removed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sainsf the unsourced material that I've removed so far was not essential to the article, and actually read more like what we see in a tourist brochure than an encyclopedic article. I have a few more sections to go before I recruit a citation expert to help clean-up that portion of the review. Thank you for your detailed review so far. Atsme📞📧 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Atsme. Thanks for all the improvements so far, I am keeping an eye on them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sainsf, I'm on the 3rd and final column of references and will try to get them completed this evening when I return. Just letting you know. Atsme📞📧 21:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf, I've cleaned-up everything I am physically able to see at this point in the review. Atsme📞📧 14:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Thanks for all your hard work Atsme. On to the last round: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually felt that all citations in the lead of this article were necessary based on my experiences editing & reviewing Middle Eastern and South Asian articles. They seem to be magnets for doubters which can result in frequent IP changes. Per MOS:LEAD, Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. While the citations in the lead of this article are repeated at least once in the body, I have removed a few from statements that would be least controversial, but left others. My advice is to leave the citations that still remain in the lead because of (1) the length of the article, (2) how far down in the article the citations may occur, and the fact that lead statements summarize what's in the body; therefore, some statements may be considered controversial. Atsme📞📧 16:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added a citation, although it wasn't really necessary. The main source which lists each department with links to each was cited in the preceding sentence. Atsme📞📧
  • Saw that - it's fixed. Actually, since I'm the only editor working with you in this review, it would be helpful and very much appreciated if you would go ahead and fix the small issues as you see them. Per Step 3 in reviewing, ....if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. yes Atsme📞📧
  • That's my philosophy as well, maybe I was too busy at that moment ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been over it several times until my eyes were crossed, and it appears all sources check out satisfactorily. Atsme📞📧 16:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Atsme, thanks for clearing those final doubts I had. I'm sure we can promote this now, we have seen some splendid volunteering from you here! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sainsf. You were very thorough, and I'd be honored to work with you reviewing FACs. ;-) Atsme📞📧 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]