Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Samjhauta Express bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:33, 24 May 2008.

[edit] 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings

I worked on this article back in February 2007 just as news of the attack hit the presses. Police quickly arrested people suspected of having been involved in the bombing, but nothing ever panned out. As of May 2008, this case remains unsolved. I think I have patched up all holes in the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

<resolved templates, moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The link in the infobox (currently footnote 1) is probably unnecessary; moreover, it claims to document the fact that 68 people were killed, but (although the text itself is in Urdu) the title suggests that the number of the dead were 66. I'd just eliminate it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I see a bunch of the sources call this the "Samjhota" Express. I take it that both Samjhota and Samjhauta are correct; which is more common?
  • The article's short and sweet enough; I've done a bunch of copy-editing and don't see any major problems right now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Samjhauta" is the more common term, at least according to Google ([1] vs. [2]). Also, I have removed ref #1. The title does say "66 killed", but the actual article says 68. Thanks for the copyedit and reorganization, Jbmurray. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. In the "Details" section, the quote of railway personnel says, " I showed the signal lantern to the Attari Express which was coming in very fast... ". What is "Attari Express"? Section header "Recent developments"... should not we remove the word "recent"? I am not sure though, is not non-breaking space needed between the dollar sign and the numerical value?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "Attari Express" is part of the "Samjhauta Express". The Samjhauta Express travels to the border town of Attari (hence why it's called the "Attari Express"), whereupon passengers then board a Pakistani train to Lahore. Both the Indian and Pakistani train services are collectively referred to as the "Samjhauta Express". Also, I don't believe a non-breaking space is needed between a dollar sign and the numerical value. I have seen them placed next to one another, without any space in between. And, why is "recent" not appropriate for the section header? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "Recent" - a relative term, definitely subject to change with time. What is the point of reference for "recent"? Rather, should be replaced by specific time/date range, such as Development till May 2008, or, something like that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, nice addition of the Background section. Issues addressed. Comments. The prose is looking good; some fixes needed as follows:
    • I'm concerned with recentism in the article. There are a lot of vague references to Indian-Pakistani relations without much context. A Context heading might help, or even just a path to further reading about Indian-Pakistani relations at this time. Examples of recentism:
      • "Indian journalist Siddharth Varadarajan argued that the peace process should stay on track and that any wavering would be tantamount to surrendering to terrorism."
      • "Kasuri said that the terrorist attack would not halt his trip to India..."
      • "In regards to the upcoming peace talks..."
        • I'll add a "Background" section later tonight.
    • Your title doesn't agree with your lead sentence.. please either choose "bombings were" or "bombing was". I see that jbmurray introduced this change, AHEM.
      • Contrary to what you may have heard ( ;) ), I don't always think I'm right. Anyhow, I gambled on some kind of collective noun... Is this why I always lose money at casinos? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you may have stumbled on a new casino game: Make a grammatical choice and bet on whether another reviewer will disagree with it! What are the odds?? --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't care for the term "rocked" in the details heading. It's too news-ish.
    • Since you mention it in the lead, I think you need to provide a bit of context in the Details section as to why the train was being guarded by Indian military. That is unusual to western readers - we would never have military guarding a train unless there was a high-profile federal prisoner aboard or we were at war on our own soil.
    • I'm usually the last person to suggest adding a fair use image, but a photo of the damage would add a lot to the article. If not, a free image of the Samjhauta Express? --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree on the "background" section. I was going to mention this earlier, but this has been kind of my theme recently, and I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to pick it up...
  • And another thing I almost mentioned, if I could be a mini-Ealdgyth for a moment... a) the link entitled "British Government condemns bomb attack on India–Pakistan train" declares it's from the "Associated Press of Pakistan" but 1) on examination, it seems to be from either Pakistan Press International or Asia Pulse Pty Ltd or possibly Access my Library, which in any case is (now) a pay site; I feel sure that the same info can be found from other sources (a quick google of Howells plus Samjhauta seemed to suggest so). b) the Times of India article now times (ho ho) out; I'm not sure if this is temporary, but it might be nice to find a more stable url. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Replaced one instance of the PPI source with two other sources. However, the other remains. There are no alternative links for this PPI news report. The ToI time-out is temporary. I had the same issue, but when I refreshed, the page loaded properly. Also, the background section has now been added. I will source it shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And "round midnight" is surely a little more idiomatic than "near midnight"? In general, I think a touch more copy-editing wouldn't go amiss, but it's very close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Remove the "In recent years" phrase in the Background section, because it is largely meaningless in an encyclopedia. Also, does the background have to go back all the way back to 1947? I would've thought beginning in the late 80s and focusing on the militancy (which really isn't discussed at all here) might be more apt. That bit about Hari Singh especially seems really out of place here. indopug (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll add details regarding the Kashmir militancy. I included the Partition of India to provide the reader with some understanding of why there's a dispute over the region in the first place. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment The first sentence is awkwardly phrased. You could switch the were to was if the term 'samjhauta express bombings" is generally accepted as a single incident. Alternatively, if you don't want the plural 'bombings' to coexist with the singular 'was', you could write 'refers to the attack on the ....

  • Also, if the perpetrators were never found, can one assume that it was a terrorist attack? Perhaps the word alleged may be more accurate.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The section Tensions should be renamed to something else (Controversy?) Tension works better in the present continuous (and only one point of 'tension' is described anyway).--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Tension". Would "Controversy" be an appropriate title? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • On rereading it, I can see why you used Tension rather than controversy since the incident (the evacuation of the wounded) seems to have been the cause of some tension between India and Pakistan. If you prefer to use that, its fine. An alternatives would be 'Evacuation controversy'. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like a fine well written article! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is there a source that calls it "alleged" terrorism. Ref #1 says the leaders denounced it as terrorism, so why the "alleged"? The background section is fine now. I think "Bush administration" should be linked to the administration itself rather than the president. indopug (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • See above. Someone brought up that since we did not know who the perpetrators of the attack were, we couldn't really confirm if it was a terrorist attack. If it's a militant group, would that still be considered terrorism? The terms "militancy" and "terrorism" are thought to be synonymous, but there are clear differences. Terrorists carry out attacks to create fear, while militants do it to make a point. And...Presidency of George W. Bush is now linked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One more; why not add a picture [3]? It definitely falls under fair-use. I'm surprised there isn't one already. indopug (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Image added. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have no remaining concerns; wonderful work. Small question: does the linking of the publisher in the references every time count as over-linking? I'm not sure what the policy is (if any). indopug (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; it's what I do. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, a read through this (and some very minor editing) brought up nothing noteworthy, and it's ready to go! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.