Talk:Spreading floods in Pakistan worsen, at least 1600 dead

Broadcast report

One of the sources included here is a video source from the BBC.

Facts taken from the report

(in no particular order)

• Flood disaster in second week
• Central Punjab province affected mostly on Thursday the 5th of August.
• Still raining in many parts of Pakistan
• 80% of food reserves depleted
• Floods receded in many parts leaving layer slime and mud.
• Pakistani RAF pilots volunteering for aid mission to deliver foodstuffs such as flour (enough to feed 100 families for a month). Pilots working maximum number of hours, motivation high, tension high.
• Thousands of people in Pakistan haven't been reached at all.
• Disasters emergency committee - coordinating and representing the UK's leading humanitarian agencies.
• Country already facing economic crisis and Taliban insurgency
• President in London, England - prioritizing Taliban problem. Criticized for being away during disaster in his country.
• Main river of Pakistan is the Indus, stretches from North to South and it is this river that has flooded due to massive monsoon rains.
• There is fear that cholera and other waterborne diseases may start spreading soon. Diarrhea and respiratory infections have already started spreading due to the extremely unsanitary conditions.

Categories

The Politics and conflicts category is included because of the minor point that the Prime Minister of the country is in London during this disaster and this has made him deeply unpopular since he is seen to be abandoning his country during its time of crisis.

Appeal

The appeal at the end of the article is staying, whether it is WN policy or not. The relief that this could lead to for those affected by the disaster is important enough to overlook any style rules it may break. Isn't it? FireLyte--spyre (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Style is not the issue. The appeal is (1) an emotive personal approach, (2) specific to the UK. Such an appeal belongs in the opinions tab, as far as I can tell (even though at least one admin says no external links in opinions.)

You can mention, neutrally, what various countries are doing to provide relief, but an appeal will damage the credibility of the news in the eyes of the reader, and thus perhaps be less effective in raising awareness and funds.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ah I suppose you're right. I'll make it neutral then. I suppose there are other places to publicise the appeal. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Too long?

There is more that can be added here but I don't know whether it is too long already. I know most people won't want to read an article longer than this. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you browsed WN:FA? Many of the articles there are similar in length or a little longer. However, only you can judge. I added some section breaks to make it more, er, digestible.

I noticed that Patrick Fuller actually used the word desperate:

• http://www.ifrc.org/docs/news/10/10080602/index.asp

--InfantGorilla (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Section breaks are such a good idea. I must remember to use them in long articles. That kind of source, the one you linked, is just the kind of thing I really want to learn how to find. Things like press releases, the first origin of stories. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I guessed lucky with a search query. I googled something like 'red cross pakistan fuller desperate'. There is a reviewer here who fails articles with 'Red Cross' as too vague, so I wanted to find out which part of the movement to attribute. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ah I didn't realise it was so big. By the way is there a list of all the reviewers anywhere? Like a filtered user list or something? I need to bug someone to review the Karachi article before it gets stale. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow

This article is really detailed and in my opinion, well written. Maybe it should be a featured article after it gets published. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1073908 [Passed]

Revision 1073908 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1073908 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Review of revision 1073908 [Passed]

Revision 1073908 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1073908 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Note removed

I have removed the note and added it in parentheses per agreement with a reviewer. Though I agree it is wordy we should conform to the SG and it is worth it to get it published. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification please

• "Pakistani RAF pilots have been volunteering ..."

Could the article please clarify who they are? Pakistan-born pilots in the British RAF, or the air force of another country. Or is RAF a typo for PAF, Pakistan Air Force?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I took the RAF thing from a source I now cannot find, possibly because I linked to the FT.com and they have a limit on how many articles you can read. I'll try not to link to them again I guess it would be real annoying to not be able to see a source, plus not good for verifiability.

The article, as I remember, did imply they were Pakistani pilots, from the Pakistani air force. But I can't verify that so I guess keeping the article as it is with your change is best now. My memory is in no way 100% reliable and I don't want to put inaccurate information in even by accident. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)