Talk:Liaquat Ali Khan government
Appearance
Liaquat Ali Khan government was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Liaquat Ali Khan government/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Titan2456 (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your work on the article so far. After looking the article over, it doesn't meet the good article criteria just yet. If you're interested in improving the article further, you might consider opening a peer review to see if anyone has more general advice, or you could leave a message at WikiProject Politics or WikiProject Pakistan to see if someone familiar with this topic has any thoughts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's a brief review of how the article compares to the good article criteria right now:
- Well written: The article doesn't have a proper lead. The first paragraphs should summarize the rest of the article. And just as another note, the list should be formatted like other lists on Wikipedia or it should be written in prose.
- Verifiable: Even though the article has some good sources, there are a lot of statements in the article that don't have any source at all. Besides the lead, every claim in the article should have a source supporting it before it can be considered a good article. I have not checked whether the sources match the statements they're attached to, but someone reviewing that might have trouble if there aren't any page numbers for them to check.
- Broad in its coverage: The article only gives a few bare facts about what the government did. It should have more information about the government's activities and the context around them if possible.
- Neutral: Nothing major here, but it should avoid editorialized language like
recovering from the bloody partition of India
and maybeseasoned politicians
. - Stable: No issues.
- Illustrated: No issues.