Talk:Shahid Khaqan Abbasi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Assalam alaykum warahamatullah wabarakatuh. I will be reviewing this article and will post my comments soon. RRD (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well written

• Weasel words : "According to some reports", "received his early education", "The cabinet was criticised"
• WP:Words to watch:"gaining a master's degree", "across different projects", "various energy projects", "Later he became","significant time", "Assembly shortly after being voted ""Reportedly, PML (N) leadership""Except few", "most of the cabinet members"
• WP:Puffery: "wealthy businessman", "wealthy and political family"
• A paragraph should start with Shahid Khaqan Abbasi being referred as "Abbasi" and in the later sentences the pronoun "he" should be used. This is violated in the Early Political Career section.

RRD (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Since there a three reports any one of them should be named. Moreover there are two "later"s in the article. RRD (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is problem with the text about plane hijacking. The use of words "allegdly" , "accused" are objectionable. The article also needs to clarify why Abbasi refused to stay in the secratariat. RRD (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:WTA. "alleged and accused are appropriate"...but however I have removed the terms, see here . also i have removed the line about Abbasi stay in the PM house, because it is unconfirmed report. --Saqib (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a mention of pressured in the plane hijackibg case. @Saqib:. Also the last sentence of his visit to Saudi Arabia needs to be elaborated. Unfortunately, even after the passing of one week, the issues were not addresed. RRD (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with " pressured in the plane hijacking case"? Details of visit to Saudi Arabia have been expanded a bit. As you can read here, there is not much to add. Which other issues were not addressed? Most of the issues highlighted above were fixed. --Saqib (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Who presurrised is not clear. Also I did some of the changes which you were expected to do. RRD (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

RRD: Fixed. I genuinely appreciate your assistance. --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In many of the paragraphs, there is no pronoun and the word Abbasi is repeated over again. RRD (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

:This issue has been fixed [[1]. --Saqib (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• The jobs which he did in US and Saudi Arabia must be specified.
• What is the role of information of Abbasi's ownership of an airline doing in early political career?
• A politician's article is incomplete without a section of his views on various issues. (Check APJ Abdul Kalam, Siddiqullah Chowdhury, Mohsin Raza for reference)
• More information needs to be put in for his tenure as a minister of petroleum and commerce. RRD (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: I am unable to find a single source which can confirm the nature of jobs he did in US and in Saudi Arabia.

I think a two line para indicating what Abbasi did following his first unsuccessful election would be better suit in political career section to give a chronology of his life. I've no issue if this information move to any other section though.

Again, i am unable to find sources which talk about his views. Recently Ishaq Dar bio was able to gain GA status even without having information of his political views.

I have added some information during his tenure as Petroleum Minister, however we don't have anything to all about his tenure as Commerce Minister because he held the position for a brief time - a couple of months. --Saqib (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot help. The article cannot pass this criteria if it only says about his political career and personal life. (Even non GA articles also exclusively speak about these only, then how can this article be different from them). Any other aspects of his life and career needs to be added. Also the pre political career is small for a GA. RRD (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: Noted, but if we don't have anything else to add, how could I possibly expand the bio? I have tried my best to make this bio as comprehensive as possible but I am afraid I couldn't find anything else which worth adding here or any RS talking about his views. Same for small sized pre-political career. As per GA criteria, the candidate article addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic and I think this bio is both focussed on the subject and do contains main aspects. --Saqib (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Going through other articles and reviews extensively, I can conclude that this article passes this criteria just by a margin. RRD (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: With no intention to offend you, don't you think you're getting too tough on this nom. After-all, this is not a FA candidate. This bio is as detailed as a GA should be because it covers the main aspects of the topic. I hope by time the article will include the missing part as well. In any case, I respect your opinion and look forward to your final review. --Saqib (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the article was reviewed according to the GA criteria only. To be frank, the article should have been quick failed as it is horribly written, but still I gave chance. RRD (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you want me to get its copyedit done? --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer review and copyedit are dond before nominating. Currently after the edits, it is fine. RRD (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

An election result is reffered as poor. The last sentence of this article is an opinion of the newspaper article's author which is stated as a fact. Also the use of the word loyalist also makes the article biased as the media oftem unjustifiably uses the word. RRD (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see the changes here. --Saqib (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Currently I find no problem with sourcing. RRD (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Images

No problem with the use of images. RRD (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Stability

The article is stable currently with no edit wars or disruptive editing. RRD (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

@Royroydeb: I was able to fix most of the points and the changes can be viewed here. But I am unable to figure out what to replace "According to some reports".. because at-least 3 different publications are cited. @Mar4d: would you be able to review my changes and improve it further? --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: Since I am doing a GA review and not a peer review, matters related to this article must be discussed here so that it can be used for further reference. RRD (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: I have completed doing an initial round of the review. You are to address the issues within a week that is within 26th August. RRD (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I will recheck all the references and do a final review soon. RRD (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)