Talk:Liaquat Ali Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Liaquat Ali Khan has been listed as one of the History 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Hello

Yes?—64.169.86.195 06:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Major overhaul of the article

I have made a major overhaul in the article adding a lot more amount of information. Similarly, I have cited around 9 sources, none of which were present beforehand. The article has also been wikified and numerous pictures have also been added. I have made every effort to present a non-biased and neutral point of view however, if anyone believes that I have been biased in areas, its wikipedia, you are free to correct it.

What I would also like is to diversify the sources which has been cited.(Gambit pk 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC))


[edit] This article looks good

But it needs imrpovement it doesn't mention a legacy or any criticisms, it is properly referenced and has good pictures ..I am in two minds about GA status..will get back to it. --Zak 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Legacy

I have added the "Criticism and legacy" section to the article. Since it might be the most controversial part of the entire article, I have tried to remain as objective as possible and have even written a answer presented to these criticism by Shahid M Amin, who served in the Pakistan foreign service and was a ambassador to various countries, in his book "Pakistan's foreign policy". However I dont feel that answers to criticism should be a part of this section since the section should only focus upon the criticism. Thus I would just like suggestion if the Shahid M Amin part should continue to remain present.

On another note, I believe that I have added sufficient(5 in number) credible references which should be enough. The only thing I see as a deffiency is a picture for this section. I believe a picture of the postage stamps which has his face printed should be a good option.(Gambit pk 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] GA nom

This is a good article, however, there are some issues that force to put it on hold for GA.

First and foremost, it needs a thorough copy-editing. There are garmmar mistakes, as well as points that could be rephrased better, IMHO.

Second, some points seem to verge on POV. For instance, you say in the lead-in he was "an obvious choice for prime minister". However, I dont why exactly he was an obvious choice, as opposed to some other politician. Was he an obvious choice according to some authority on the matter, or is this just your POV?

Third, while you do have in-line citations, I think the article could do with a few more. There are whole paragraphs without an in-line citation (e.g. the first para in "Political Career").

Again, like I said, a good article, but needs some fine-tuning yet. Druworos 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The tone is too hagiographic. In the Wikipedia:Peer_review#Liaquat_Ali_Khan, I reviewed one paragraph and found three places where it disagrees with the cited source, but there seems to be no attempt made to address it. Tintin (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Article has been on hold for over a week, and the concerns given have not been addressed. This article has been failed. (I assume that, as above, this is a good article, but not a Good Article) Homestarmy 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement (an informal peer review)

Overall, this is a really promising article, with good pictures, clear sections, and a nice selection of references. In response to the request on the Wikiproject Pakistan discussion board, I have a few points to make which may help improve it further:

  1. Nawabzada, and Nawab: add links to explanations of these titles, or explain them in the article. It is definitely of interest to establish that he was the son of the Nawab of Karnal, and therefore a prince. This would not be at all obvious at the moment to a non-Pakistani/Indian reader.
  2. Which Oxford college did Liaquat attend?
  3. Add link to Inner Temple, and to explain the phrase ‘called to the Bar’.
  4. What happened to Liaquat's first wife? At the moment it is not stated whether they divorced or she died.
  5. Add link to separate page for Begum Ra’ana, who is an important figure in her own right.
  6. Perhaps the whole of his personal life should go in a separate section?
  7. Should he be called ‘Liaquat’ throughout the article? I think this would be clearer than the current mixture of ‘Liaquat Ali Khan’, ‘Liaquat Ali’, etc, and it is how he was generally described in documents of the period.
  8. Jinnah is referred to as ‘Quaid’ in a part of the article based in the 1930s; he was not acclaimed as such until the Lahore meeting of 1940, so this is confusing. In general, in line with Wikipedia’s policy on not using titles, it would be more appropriate to talk about ‘Jinnah’ throughout the article, rather than calling him ‘Quaid-e-Azam’.
  9. The sections on Liaquat's political life are good, though I feel that there should be more on his role in the transfer of power.
  10. The section on his death is very suspect, especially the phrase “Killing the assassin erased all clues to the identity of the real culprit behind the murder”. We can’t just say this. It would be much more encyclopedic to put ‘The assassin was killed, but rumours have persisted that another party may have been behind the murder’ – with references to published material on the subject, and more detail if you think it appropriate.
  11. There are a few POV issues, especially in the Criticism & Legacy section. It is particularly important that this section be rendered in strictly neutral language and does not read like an essay. It is not up to the editors of Wikipedia to cast judgment on Liaquat, either positive or negative. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.

Hope that helps! -- TinaSparkle 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Few things to be considered

Although, I have rectified almost all the problems which faced the article which led to its failure in the previous GA nomination but there have been a few which I have failed to correct.

Firstly and foremostly, the date of assissination of Liaquat Ali. It is mentioned as 15th October in the references provided of the State Dept whereas an overwhelming number of sources put it at 16th October. For example, the books by Farooq Naseem Bajwa and Rizwana Zahid Ahmad both cite the date as 16th October. A simple google search about assasination of the Prime minister will show that the date is indeed 16th October so I am not sure what to do because the State Dept reference is very credible but at the same time all other sources are giving a different date. At present, I have continued to use the 16th October date until the problem can be solved.

Secondly about how the assassin was killed. The State dept source clearly states that he was killed by the crowd and so do a number of other references(which I will provide at a later time). However I have seen a few sites claim that he was killed by security officers. I contacted my grand father about this and he says that he was killed by the DSP, a police officer.

Thirdly. TinaSparkle brought up a good point as to what happened to her first wife, Jehangira Begum. The State Dept source only states that the first wife did not make public appearances as opposed to her second wife. The special edition about Liaquat Ali Khan on "The News" mentions nothing about the fate of her first wife and neither does Rizwana Zahid Ahmad in her book. I have tried to find an answer on google but to no avail.

If anyone can solve the above mentioned problems, I would be grateful. Gambit pk 11:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a full copyedit of the article, removing statements that could be construed as POV and fixing a lot of syntax problems, etc, that would be likely to make the article fail again. I will check printed sources on the date of Liaquat's assassination: we absolutely have to get the date right! I will also see what I can find on Jenhangira Begum and the assassin. -- TinaSparkle 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Deleted?

I was just reading the new lead this morning which seems to have been reverted. I am not sure why it was. I found it to be a very good summary of the entire article while the current one hardly does it justice.

I am now going to quote one of the paragraph from the Wikipedia Lead section article.

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/WP:LEAD

The current one is not fullfilling that criteria. The above quoted paragraph explicitly states that the lead must "stand on its own as a concise version of the article" while the present one is not doing it. We can made further improvements in the lead section which was posted this morning but there was no reason to revert it.

I am therefore going to revert it back and if I am wrong please care to explain. Gambit pk 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gambit pk. I reverted the lead, and explained in the notes it was because much in it was tautologous with the information in the article. It was also badly written and full of typographical errors, which it still is in the version you have just put back.
The reason I changed it before was that I believed that the shorter lead did fulfil the criteria as set out in WP:LEAD. However, I am happy to accept that you think it does not, and that perhaps it does need to be longer than the short version I had created.
Though a lead should act as a concise version of the article, it does not need to repeat factual detail that will appear below at any length. It should create interest and give a feel for the shape of a subject's life. I think it is unnecessary, for example, to restate the details of Liaquat's family background and education: most leads on political biography articles do not do so unless such points are overwhelmingly relevant. In Liaquat's case, I see no strong evidence that they are.
If you look at the leads for the comparable articles on Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, I hope it will be obvious what I mean. Nehru's family is mentioned, but only because his position in a dynasty is one of the main points relevant to any biography of him. It is not felt necessary to mention his Cambridge education, nor what degree he earned. Jinnah's mentions nothing about his family nor his education, for these factors were not dominant in his life. In my opinion the summary of Jinnah's life in the lead on his article is less good than the summary on Nehru's, focusing too little on his achievement in creating Pakistan. (In fact, I may go and edit that next!) However, it has its virtues in that it does not simply repeat details that are listed below, but gives a sense that the most important themes in his life were the move from Congress to the League, the revitalisation of the League, and the achievement of becoming Governor-General of Pakistan.
I will revise, rather than revert, the lead you have put on the article, copyediting it for grammar and spelling, and refocusing it towards Liaquat's achievements. I will, however, do my best to keep it of a similar length to that you have proposed. I hope very much that this will be acceptable to you, but of course Wikipedia is always open to improvement, and I cannot promise to get it right first time! I would welcome further opinions on this matter from any interested editors. -- TinaSparkle 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)