Wikipedia:Peer review/Independence Day (Pakistan)/archive1

Independence Day (Pakistan)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming for a FA out of it. It has just passed a detailed GA and I believe it is close to FA status. I want the review which states that what else can be done in order to make it ready for FA. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dwaipayanc

Comment The subsection "Independence" discusses the problem with the date (14 versus 15 August). So, the name of the sub-section does not really go with what is described in the section. Shouldn't you call the section something like "date controversy" ? Also, this is a quite intriguing controversy. Even if we may not know why the date was changed from 15 to 14 August, do you have any data on when was it done? It may not be a specific year when suddenly the independence day was changed, in that case at least a possible year-range? Who made the change? It was not Jinnah for sure? So, who changed the date that even the revered e maker of the nation Jinnah mentioned in his speech? This should have some more coverage, as this is sort of unique! --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the first comment! I've changed the tile and Working on grabbing other info which can possibly be added. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess previously the particular header was '14 vs 15 August' which I changed to 'Independence' and you are right, the title seemed off and even 'Date of independence' can be improved. I wouldn't recommend "date controversy" because a) it is not a 'controversy' (strictly speaking), just sometimes after 1948 the date was changed to 14 probably because India celebrate its ID on 15 and the transfer of power took place at midnight between 14 and 15 and b) it is not widely known even in Pakistan and those who do 'are ok with it'. Samar ^Talk 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the "Background" and "Partition" sections, the narrative jumps from 1858 to 1930. That's a big jump. Also, the background section does not really elucidate why a religion-based division was sought by some people. It says Iqbal was the first proposer apparently, but what made him (or others) to propose or pursue that idea of religion-based partition? The role of Indian independence movement, in general, and Indian National Congress, in particular, (actually the conflict between the League and the Congress) in the creation of Pakistan is not perceptible in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
The work done during the GAN review is really impressive. This article seems within the scope of the Military History Project to me, and we've been getting feedback from historians lately asking us to do more with articles on causes and effects of conflict. Does anyone object if I tag this for Milhist and attempt some copyediting? - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the article on the 'day' of Independence comes under MIL, surely the articles on the events leading up to it do. But that's my opinion and please do the copyediting, even if it doesn't come under the scope! Samar ^Talk
- The theory is that if there's no other single article that successfully covers the events in the "History" section, then we don't mind tagging ... but I see now that Pakistan Movement may cover it, or will, eventually. I wouldn't be very useful as a copy editor, because the article is in Pakistani English (naturally enough), which I'm terrible at. If you ever want to bring articles on a head of state, causes or effects of conflict, or military history to Peer Review for history, A-class or FAC, please do, and ping me if I miss them ... I'll do my best regardless of the variety of English. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]