Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad Ali Jinnah/archive1

Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Hi All - After 8 days of revisions, analysis in peer review, I've decided to submit this article to FAC. I think all objective and poignant criticism that remains to be given will only be obtained here. I'm prepared to listen to and address all concerns, and I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks, Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know there will be some concern about describing Jinnah as an "Indian." There are many reasons for this: (1) Pakistan did not exist till 1947 (2) Jinnah himself said: "I am an Indian first second and last". He lived in "India" for most of his life, save one year. (3) Up till 1940, he was an Indian nationalist politician. In terms of content for an encyclopedia, I think it is justified to describe him as an Indian who became the founder of the state of Pakistan. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - this image needs its copyright status resolving. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - it should be a PD-India or PD-Pakistan, given that the date of this pic being taken is definitely in the 1930s. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. All issues raised in Peer review were well handled and the writing is very good, well structured and balanced. I'll see if I can't dig in again to see if there is anything left that I can find to improve, but I don't see anything as of yet. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Followed the peer review where the issues raised were addresses properly. Describing Jinnah as an "Indian" should not give rise to discontent as it is well-referenced. With well-placed inline citations and references, the article is comprehensive.--Dwaipayanc 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A well written and well referenced article. -- Andy123  (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Really well written article &mdash; however, can you clarify the source and the tag for the image Image:Mazare Quaid.JPEG? It dosen't look like the image exists in the source CC gallery. There is a Noman Janjua image there, but it is different from the one used in the article. AreJay 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply' - I will have to ask user:M.Imran to clarify this. In the interim, I will remove this pic. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With the image in question out of the way, I'm happy to vote Strong Support. Great work as always, Rama's Arrow! AreJay 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * request Could you upload an audio pronunciation of his name? lots of issues  | leave me a message 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - Humm....I'll have to ask somebody...dunno who does audio around here. Please wait about this. Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to ask User:Ambuj.Saxena. He produced the audio version for the India article. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The uncle is on a wikibreak - I've asked Nichalp. Let's c. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. And I am not an uncle (if at all you were refering to me). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support: This article is a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Great work! I found couple of minor typos that I corrected.  Otherwise, referencing and text looks great. --Blacksun 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course. Saravask 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Hi Osbus - all facts/assertions in the intro are mentioned in the main paras and referenced thru there. An intro is a summary, so I personally guess its ok. I'll address the weasel word issue. Why the double referencing? Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You need references in the intro. For example, some historians say needs a citation. Btw, I think that's considered a weasel word. --Osbus 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi to you to...I guess it's ok. But over citing never hurts. --Osbus 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Excellent and committed work by the Arrow. Green Giant 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: On a cursory reading, this article seems to have a wealth of information. However, it could do with shorter paragraphs, and if possible, a reduction in article size. Use summary style. The lead definitely needs some reduction in size. The section titles could be made more "encyclopedic" avoiding, for example, the double quotes around a part of a section title. I know that these comments are too demanding, but this is just my greedy wishlist. :-) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best to fulfill them - I can reduce the intro size definitely, and I'll work on article size reduction. Please clarify more what you believe is necessary to make this more "encyclopedic." Rama&#39;s Arrow 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not able to characterise which subsection titles could make the article more "encyclopedic". Besides being unactionable, it's not a major issue at all. Support This article is highly informative and very well-written. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have slashed the lead and cut 5kb and some pics from the article. I don't think I should go further in cutting, as valuable info will be removed. Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Nicely done article. Neutral and everything properly cited.  Mercenary2k 3:20PM 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is amazing how you single-handidly turned this article around from where it was to on the verge of featured status in less than two weeks. I do however have minor issues with this article that can be corrected quickly. First, there seems to be a desire to include both Americanize and British English forms in this article. I suspect it is due to the fact that some of the content remained from its previous version. However, just searching for the term "organize" and "organise" reveals that both forms exist in this article. As far as a I know, the general consensus on articles about Pakistan is to use the British English and I'm fairly certain the articles about India also use the British form. And secondly, another minor issue, is with the dashes. For some reason, some of the dashes are longer than the others, and I see no justification for it, or rather, for some of the dashes to be smaller. I know its a manual of style concern, but since I am not proficient in this whole MOS, I leave these corrections for others. Nonetheless, I Support. Pepsidrinka 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi - your first concern is my fault - I generally use American English, and sometimes forget to differentiate when it comes to such articles. The second concern comes from the use of not "-" but "&mdash ;". This is as per WP:MOS and I was advised to do this by Saravask. I will work to fix the first issue. Thanks for your feedback. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please convert the hyphens to dashes (&amp;mdash;)

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) List the location of Kaithawar
 * 2) Christian Missionary Society High School -- location?
 * 3)  Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta -- who were they? list them for the benefit of those not familiar with the India independence movement. Similary for Annie Besant et al.
 * 4) English better and more regularly than his mother tongue, Gujarati. -- could it be summrised to "Spoke English more fluently than ..."?
 * 5) Child Marriages Restraint Act -- italics?
 * 6)  wakf? -- context
 * 7)  Sandhurst committee -- wikify/ expand
 * 8) Wikify Neville Wadia,
 * 9) "mission of British minister Stafford Cripps" -- split into 2 wikilinks
 * 10) Use of Bombay -- convert to Mumbai, The first instance of the word should be written as: Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay)
 * 11)  Sikander Hayat Khan? -- who is he?
 * 12)  May 16/ June 16. I'm sure it was known as "16 May" and "16 June" plans. If this is a proper noun, it need not be wikified (eg the movie 16 December)
 * 13) U.S. -- remove the full stops
 * 14) Caucus Case -- wikify
 * 15) I've noticed some missing information:
 * 16) *Ruttie was his second wife. Details needed on his first
 * 17) *That Ruttie and Jinnah were estranged and that her death devasted him
 * 18) * Jinnah, despite being Muslim, used to consume pork and alcohol
 * 19) * That Jinnah envisioned India and Pakistan coexisting peacefully together and that he hoped to return to Jinnah House. (This source can be taken from the ToI references I've added to Jinnah House last May)


 * Hi - your points have been addressed. Thanks for your input. Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would still like to know about his first wife and why he remarried. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Emibai is already mentioned in the second para in "early life" - she died a year after he moved to London. He married Rattanbhai 20 years after Emibai's death. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The cirumstances surrounding Jinnah's marriage to Rattanbai are written in "Early political career." Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How did I miss that? Support now. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A google for 'Emibhai' and 'Jinnah' comes up with two links both of which say that she was 14 at the time of marriage. The article says that she was 16. Can you pl. cross-check the sources. Tintin (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While the Pak-gov site asserts she was 14, no other site says so. Ndless, I will insert that "she is believed to have been between 14 or 16 years old." Rama&#39;s Arrow 04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support (with some comments): Nice article. However, there are two red links now Caucus case and Khurshid Ahmed, these should be fixed. Also, the article states that Jinnah had Hindu ancestry; while that is a known fact to south asians, a reference should be provided to back it up. Thanks. --Ragib 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your points - I removed the Hindu ancestry mention becoz I couldn't find any independent source. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am sure there would be some history books that can support this. I believe I read a reference to it in "Freedom At Midnight", but I don't have the book with me. You can check that book if you can find one. Thanks. --Ragib 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That book is generally frowned upon for being dramatized. Thanks for your feedback. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Should definitely be promoted to FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Looks alot better than before, looks like there has been lots of improvements (Fast track 21:06 27 April 2006 (UTC)