Talk:Khudai Khidmatgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article could use a few dates and other bits of historical context.Bjones 14:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'll be sorting it out as soon as I get some free time Zakksez 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Khudai Khidmatgar has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

[edit] GA status

This is a definitely a good article. There are some small issues to be corrected based on the GA criteria.

1. It is well written

To fix – According to the Manual of Style, the lead section should be expanded to two to three paragraphs and be able to stand on its own. As a non-expert, I got confused with the use of the words Pashtuns, Pakhtuns, and Pathans until I actually read the article on the Pashtun people. It would help to state that the three really mean the same group and then consistently use one spelling throughout the article. There are some one sentence paragraphs which should be merged into larger paragraphs. Less important are some one paragraph sections that could be merged into a larger section (if possible). There is a image caption missing for 5_close.jpg.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

To fix – There is good citing of sources, but currently a mix of Harvard referencing and footnote referencing is used. One or the other style should be used consistently. More citations would be helpful especially in the “Criticisms” section but not required.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Pass

5. It is stable

Pass

6. It contains images

Pass

I have put the article on hold to let you make the changes before promoting the article to GA status. RelHistBuff 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I copy here your question you put on my talk page so that the discussions are recorded here.

Thanks for the feedback on the article I am working on your criticisms as i write this..I am not sure how to solve the pathan/pashtun/pakhtun/afghan problem though as some of the words have been interchangeable historically? --Zak 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I should note that I am a GA reviewer and not an expert on this subject. I apologise in advance for any misstatements I make. First suggestion is one could decide which word to use in the majority of the article. The Pashtun people article consistently uses "Pashtun", except in the ancestral definition section where "Pathan" is introduced. Let's say you decide on "Pashtun" as well. Then at the first instance of the word, you mention the other words. For example currently at the top: "It represented a non-violent freedom struggle against the British Empire by the Pashtuns (also called Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, and Pathans)." Then one tries to consistently use "Pashtun". This is important in the first section where you mentioned "Pakhtun society" without defining what is "Pakhtun". Could you say "Pashtun society" instead? If there is a use of "Pakhtun" that is required due to historical or other reason, then leave it as it is, but perhaps you could make a short explanation of why "Pakhtun" is used. RelHistBuff 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I noted the changes done, so I promoted the article. Just one point that was missed. The lead section should really be expanded to summarize the article. It should be enough to compel the reader to read the rest of the article. Also you should also consider citing more of your sources especially in the more controversial sections. If a passage of text is not cited, an editor in the future could challenge it and eventually remove it. If it is well-cited, other editors will be able to defend it. RelHistBuff 07:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RHB Thanks, I'll sort out the references first and then the lead section. Your input is appreciated. --Zak 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)