Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Pakistanis/1

British Pakistanis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. The consensus is for delisting. Though there has been some work done on improving the article since the GAR started, there are still issues regarding prose quality and other GA criteria. The lead does not fully summarise the article per WP:Lead; and there are challengable statements that are not sourced, such as "These immigrants were often the first Asians to be seen in British port cities and were treated as subjects of curiosity." I recommend a period spent copy-editing and tightening the article following the criteria in Wikipedia:Good article criteria (and the links on that page) and the advice in Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, and then resubmit for review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This article was recently promoted to GA status. As has been noted, this was done without a review page being created. After I raised this issue, a review page was created stating that all of the criteria had been met. Following this, I raised some concerns on the talk page of the article about some problems with the article and I've now had a more thorough look through it and have to question whether it meets the GA criteria, particularly those relating to the quality of the writing and sourcing. For example, here are some quotes from the article:

"They were forced to leave East Africa due to the creation of policies by leaders such as Idi Amin" (rather clumsy wording) Done
"The midlands and north of England were areas which were heavily reliant on manufacturing industries and the effects of deindustrialisation continued to be felt in these areas and its communities until the 2000s" (bad grammar) Done
"Mumtaz is the most famous Pakistani restaurant in the UK" (no source) Done
"Sajid Mahmood, Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad currently play cricket for England. There are several other British Pakistanis who play cricket for smaller county teams" (this implies that England is a big county team, whereas counties play at a different level to countries such as England) Done
"Hockey and polo are commonly played in Pakistan but these sports are not so popular with British Pakistanis, lack of popularity for the latter sports are possibly due to the urban lifestyles which the majority of British Pakistanis lead" (no source) Done
"Famous British Pakistani sports people outside of cricket include: Adam Khan who is Racing driver from Bridlington, Yorkshire" (badly worded and capitalised) Done
"Ikram Butt who was the first South Asian to play code of international rugby for England in 1995" (bad grammar; no source) Done
"The existence of a North-South divide leaves Pakistanis in the north of England economically depressed, although there is a small concentration of wealthy northerners of Pakistani origin living in the suburbs of Greater Manchester, as certain individuals have taken advantage of the opportunities that arise from living in the UK's second city" (Birmingham claims to be the UK's second city) Done
"Location in Britain has had a great impact on the success of British Pakistanis. British Pakistanis based in large cities such as London and Manchester have found making the transition into the professional middle class easier than those based in the peripheral towns. This is due to the fact that cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow & Oxford have provided a more economically encouraging environment for Pakistani entrepreneurs. Other small towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire have provided far fewer opportunities" (no source; use of "&") Done
"They have Purchased houses next to their villages and sometimes even purchased property in more expensive cities, such as Islamabad and Lahore" (strange capitalisation) Done

This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it gives an idea of the problems with the article that make me question its GA status. I realise that it's very soon after the promotion to be reassessing the article, but I think that it needs to be done to ensure that it meets the required standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from initial reviewer

I was the one who initially promoted the article. At that point I had not reviewed a GAN for some years, having been active at the process long ago and then stopping activity there. My first few GA reviews were rusty, this one included, and I would agree that it should be delisted. I hope it is understood that I simply stumbled a little at the start of the learning curve for GAN, and that my wider judgment with regards to the process is not, I think, at fault. AGK [•] 00:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, as we both concur, can we not delist this now? AGK [•] 10:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how the process works. Are we supposed to leave time for the article to be improved in light of the comments here, or should it be delisted now? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actions

Did anyone inform the last nominator at WP:GAN that the article was being reassessed? If that happened and no corrective action has occurred, then I see no harm in de-listing. On the other hand, if the nominator was not informed, the next stage might be to consider the effort needed to bring the article up to standard. If it's a big job then delisting and suggesting that the last nominator considers a renomination at WP:GAN after undertaking the necessary corrective action is probably the way to go; if it is not a big job, you could inform the last nominator, go for a "hold", and then reassess after a week or so. However, this is re-assessment, so a decision is needed, sooner or later. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'll do that now. I imagine that they (Sansonic) have the article on their watchlist though, so they should have seen this if they've been logged in. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is best to wait for the result of the reassessment before delisting it. If the reassessment shows that the article does not meet the GA criteria then I agree with Pyrotec's suggestion above.--Sansonic (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the reassessment and I think there's a consensus that the article doesn't currently meet the requirements. The options now seem to be to delist or to give it a week or so for the article to be improved before making the decision then. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the above examples that you have given, is there any other parts of the article which you feel could be improved?--Sansonic (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I should have looked at the article's history. The main requirements are given in WP:WIAGA, but the article mentions by name several living people by name, so WP:BLP should also be considered. I've not reviewed the article, so I can't be more specific than this. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sansonic, there are other problems with the prose here and there, which a thorough proof-reading would sort out. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we reach consensus I would welcome comments from any other editors, particularly those who have not made any contributions to the article.--Sansonic (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Some improvements have been made to the article so it would be good to get a view on the present state of things. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]