Talk:Sir Creek
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sir Creek article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Sir Creek was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 23, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the disputed Sir Creek, a tidal estuary, has prevented India and Pakistan from setting a permanent maritime boundary in the Arabian Sea? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
Comment
editThis article is most probably written by an indian as evident from the biased language in it.
Sir Creek
edit- Officials of India and Pakistan are expected to meet in Pakistan this month August, 2006 to discuss the Sir Creek issue.
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sir Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi. This is a well-written article but does not qualify yet for Good Article status for the following reasons:
- The Tribune, Chandigarh, India, is an editorial page which does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations.
- It also appears that "Dialogue on Sir Creek begins" The Hindu does not qualify as a valid source either because the information also reads like an editorial, especially when the author endorses India's plan at the end.
- There is not enough sourcing in general besides the invalid sources. The second half of the third paragraph and the whole fourth paragraph under "Dispute" are entirely devoid of citations. Under "Dispute resolution", the most important pieces of information, about India and Pakistan's responses to the dispute resolution is also completely missing citations.
I noticed on your nomination that all reliable sources have been used in the article. Unfortunately, a lack of sources does not enable reviewers to overlook the requirement that Good Articles be "factually accurate and verifiable". If you do choose to search for more sources, due to the controversial nature of the topic, I would highly recommend sourcing the information from outside third party sources (i.e. non-Indian, non-Pakistani sources) so as not to violate WP:NEUTRALITY. This article will fail for now. Please renominate when the concerns above have been addressed. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect Location
editLocation is Arabian Sea, not Indian Ocean 2409:40C1:3C:89BA:FD26:6F69:E929:D312 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Arabian Sea is mentioned in the article, and is a part of the Indian Ocean. CMD (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)