Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Lal Masjid/1

Siege of Lal Masjid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No objection to delisting, numerous issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The article has changed near-completely since its listing as a Good Article nearly 15 years ago. It has grown in size significantly, but poor writing has accompanied this expansion. I have only recently attempted to remedy some of the typos and awkward wording littered throughout the article. The article also makes frequent use of long quotes from sources without effort to paraphrase. This is particularly notable in the "Reactions" section; I understand the purpose of the section, but Wikipedia is not a repository for entire paragraphs ripped from editorials. Speaking of editorial, some of the wording in this article would no longer be appropriate under Wikipedia's updated guidelines, such as "Securing Lal Masjid brought an end to nine days of high tension in Islamabad, normally a tranquil city that had been immune to the violence experienced in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Does this sentence have encyclopedic value? Also, the tenses of this article are also odd as most of the editing done to it followed the event itself. In a similar manner, a lot of the figures in this article are outdated, and attempts to update these numbers have led to a few inconsistencies in the article. Yue🌙 08:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yue: It appears work has stalled on the article itself before you filed here; are you still planning to work on the article to bring it up to GA standard, or do you think a delisting is the most appropriate route? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Honestly, I could probably remedy the grievances I brought up this coming weekend. If there is a deadline to this reassessment (I am not aware of one), then I believe delisting would be the best route until such work is done. I also welcome others' opinions, especially those who hold opposing views; this reassessment has gotten a lot less attention than I was expecting. Yue🌙 03:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yue: There is no hard deadline; GAs may be delisted after a week, but should not be as long as work is ongoing. I just wanted to see if you intended to keep going forward with improvements, no issue at all with keeping this open until you view it to be either complete or unsalvageable. Unfortunately, a large percentage of GARs sit still for seven days and are delisted; an unfortunate situation, but this is better than allowing truly atrocious articles to remain GAs indefinitely, as many were before our recent changes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: It may be evident to you already, but I was unable to find the time to work on the article last weekend. Reading over the article again, I do not think that this article would pass a Good article nomination with contemporary guidelines and expectations, and so it should be delisted, at least for now. To paraphrase a comment made on this article's Featured article candidacy archive: There are glaring prose issues which require a thorough copy edit to remedy. Yue🌙 01:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning that the sourcing is awful; I may be mistaken, but it seems there is not a single scholarly source provided, and nearly all the citations given are reports of the incident published within a year of its occurrence. As a result, a lot of the links are dead, and quality-wise many are opinion pieces. Yue🌙 01:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.