Talk:Peshawar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peshawar was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 18 December 2006

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-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.

Contents 1 Infobox picture 2 Photograph request! 3 Good Article on hold 4 Failed GA

[edit] Infobox picture

The picture of the Khyber Pass is misleading. The Pass is not in peshawar and would be appropriate for an article on FATA or NWFP.

Can you get a hold of a more appropriate free picture? Donama 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the criticism of Khyber Pass picture. I will try to get some good free pictures.

I have moved the Khyber Pass image down to a more appropriate section and have changed the image to the Islamia College. I have made more improvments to the articles to make it more inline with the Lahore and Karachi articles. Let me know of your comments. Thanks Fast track 00:32 06 July 06 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph request!

Just like to put in a request for more better quality images of Peshawar to Wikipedia Commons, so they can be added to this article and Peshawar related articles. Thanks Fast track 00:36 06 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I am keeping this article on hold for seven days. If enough inline citations are introduced in that time, it will easily pass as a good article. -Runningonbrains 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article fails criterion 2b: Inline references and citations. However, overall, this is an excellent article, and once inline citations are introduced, I would suggest re-nominating. In my opinion, it should then pass easily. -Runningonbrains 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree- at least at this time.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), I believe some sections (Educational institutions & Sites of interest) are over-linked.
• Sites of interest also provides little extra content and context other than an excessive & unhelpful list.
• The History section is (without subsections) too long and needs breaking down in to eras or associated timeframes.
• Per WP:LEAD, the opening section at one paragraph is too short.
• Many statements would benefit from having their sources directly cited; whilst there is a large References list, comments from these sources would be better used in the Footnotes section.
  • For example, "It has been argued that an ancient city named Pushkalwati, founded by Bharat's son Pushkal, may have existed in this general area during ancient Indian times before the Persian invasion of the Indian subcontinent." - needs directly referencing.
  • The Demographics section has many facts and figures but the exact source is unknown to the user in the present condition.
  • The References section currently acts more like a Further reading section without their use in the text being more closely defined.

Should these be met, I believe the article would be a VERY GOOD ARTICLE. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As part of GA, you may wish to visit Wikipedia:Peer review for further suggestions. Jhamez84 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to include the FACT that peshawar was once Afghanistans land 99 years ago. Afghanistan had a contract signed with Britain that it would be Pakistans for 92 years and that mark has passed. The pakis know that Afghanistan can not take the land back until they are settled in as a country so Pakistan is trying to mess that up by sending suicide bombers in saying its Al Qaeda and all. Peshawar is Afghan land and they have every right to say they are Afghan! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.39.15 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC).