The sentence of "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead" has been corrected to "his vast presidential powers to that of a ceremonial figurehead."
The % was spelled out and the emdashes were unspaced. Any other MOS issues?
Where can I find copy-editing help?
I tried very hard to make citations consistent. I re-did all 265 citations to make sure every single one was consistent. You can verify that by looking at edit history. How are the citations inconsistent? I think I deserve a better explanation than a vague statement such as "needs to be much more consistent".
Reformation32 (
talk)
15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)reply
You can solicit copy-editing help from
WP:GOCE. Other examples of MOS issues include
hyphen/
dash use,
overlinking, inconsistent naming (for example, both "US" and "U.S."), etc. The neutrality concern is not because of any widespread bias, but simply an issue of tone and word choice - see
WP:W2W for some guidance on this. For citation formatting: all web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, retrieval dates should all be in the same format, be consistent in what is and is not italicized, use consistent naming (for example, New York Times vs The New York Times), etc.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I have requested copy-editing. But besides that one ignominious error that you already mentioned, can you find anything else? I don't think there is a need for copy-editing unless you provide more examples.
hyphen/
dash use? I ctrl-F the whole Zardari page and couldn't understand or find any discrepancies.
All citations have retrieval dates now. If you disagree, out of the 265 references, could you find any more examples? If you agree, please cross out.
Retrieval dates are now in the correct format. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out.
Reformation32 asked me to comment
[2]. This article was rewritten starting about 6 months ago. At the time, in terms of edit count Huon and I were the primary editors of the page. Although the rewrite added a lot of sources and content, we both had concerns about bias in the rewrite. The subject of the article has received a lot of criticism, and it takes care - and multiple eyes - to state the criticism as criticism and not as fact. The page is better now (probably due to Reformation32's editing) but I still see instances of bias, such as where ideas appear in succession in a way that suggests something more. But that's my opinion. If others think the article is close, then I'm willing to work on the article and fix the biases I see.
Gimmetoo (
talk)
02:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply