Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Peru
National Flag of Peru
Coat of Arms of the Republic of Peru
Location of Peru in South America
IRC
#wikipedia-en-wpperu
Main pages
Main project talk
Peru portal talk
New articles talk
Cleanup articles talk
Nuvola apps kedit.png Peer review talk
Deletion talk
Peru related ACID
Article improvement drive talk
  Previous collaborations talk
  Featured collaborations talk
  Previous nominations talk
Peru Assessment
Assessment department talk
  Assessment bot log talk
Task forces
Translation project talk
Images task force talk
Maps task force talk
Congressional project talk
Other
Outreach talk
Template list talk
Category structure talk
Notability criteria talk
External links talk

The peer review department of the Peru WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the PeruWikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Instructions[edit]

Requesting a review[edit]

I Add peer-review=yes to the {{PeruProjectBanner}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the {{PeruProjectBanner}} for more details on the exact syntax).
II From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
III Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
IV Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
V Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

Responding to a request[edit]

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

Archiving[edit]

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{PeruProjectBanner}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

Requests[edit]

  • Please transclude new peer reviews below this

Shining Path[edit]

This is a good article that could probably make it to an A class with a little work. The article is heavy on citations but suffers from some problems that I don't know how to fix without some advice. For example, a large part of the introduction is taken up by a discussion of the name of the group. The article is not heavily edited anymore, was never edited by much more than a handful of Peruvianist, and could greatly benefit from peer review. --Descendall 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that my year-old peer review request has been reopened over here. I think that it is essentially moot at this point, given that the article has greatly changed since I wrote that. For example, the article is pretty heavily edited, and the naming issues have been resolved. If this article undergoes peer review, it should not be based on what I wrote in March 2007. --Descendall (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Universitario de Deportes[edit]

I have increased the content of the article since it was last assessed by the Peru Wikiproject and would like a peer review. I was also hoping that nothing on the page is a copyright violation. --MicroX 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peru national football team[edit]

The Peru national football team article has been greatly improved since the last check was done. At the moment, Peru's football article actually stands out as looking as one of the best. Yet, the most serious problem that prevented the article from being considered for something much better has been the lack of citations several parts of the article has (which is mainly a problem that roots itself not from false statements, but rather from the lack of citations the Spanish article from which the information was taken had). Football is the most popular sport of Peru, so lets show Wikipedia that a great article can be made about the nation's team.

I'm making this peer review request on behalf of MarshalN20 who is one of the main contributors to the article and wrote the introduction shown above. --Victor12 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Victor12[edit]

Here are some comments:

Structure

It seems to me this article needs some major restructuring as it currently has too many sections some of which contain redundant information. A good starting point for improvements is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams which provides a model on how to organize national teams articles. To comply with its guidelines the following recommendations should be implemented:

  • The History, La Blanquirroja in the FIFA World Cup, Copa América and La Blanquirroja in other tournaments should probably be merged under History so as to not divide the History of the team in four sections. A good example on how to do this is Scotland national football team which has a good History section and then short sections on its World Cup and European Championship records.
  • "La Blanquirroja" should not be used to name the team as it is not encyclopedic to call things by its nicknames.
  • "Famous players" should be renamed "Noted players"
  • The "Players Recently Retired from the Team" section should be deleted and relevant players listed under "Noted players".
  • The "List of Recent International Matches" section should be deleted. Relevant matches should be listed in the History section or in the World Cup and Copa America records sections.
  • The "Under 17 Team" section is relevant enough and long enough to be moved to its own article.
  • The "Trivia" section should be deleted per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections and relevant info moved elsewhere in the article.
  • It might be useful to use a template for the "See also" section, something similar to {{Football in Scotland}}.
  • The "Titles" section seems redundant and should probably be deleted.
Prose
  • Prose needs major work as many parts seem literally translated from Spanish. Thus, it needs to be checked for grammar and ortography.
  • It also needs some major work to get rid of POV such as "Later, between 1970 and 1982, a Golden Generation of Peruvian footballers once more brought Peru into the view of the world".
  • The sames goes for anecdotes
Sources
  • Major work required here also. Youtube links should definitely be removed. Alternative sites for references include BBC sports and other international news agencies, specially as English links should be preferred in the English Wikipedia.
  • If someone could get his hands on books about the team, that would be a major improvement for the article.
  • Many more references are needed for the article

That's all for now, there's great potential for this article, but it needs major work by dedicated editors

Peruvian nuevo sol[edit]

Recent changes and addition qualify this article as a B-rated article.--ErickAgain 18:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Victor12[edit]

I think the article has improved a lot. It is accurate, has a simple but effective structure, good grammar and references. As such it should be tagged as a B class article. The article has lots of potential and with some further work it can achieve GA or even FA status. With that in mind, here are some points for corrections and further improvement:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all important points covered in an article. To adequately cover that requirement the current lead should be expanded.
  • Also in the lead, the paragraph on etymology has no refernce to the rest of the article. Again per WP:LEAD, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. It should be merged with the History section or put in a separate subsection, "Etymology" for instance. This paragraph is also unreferenced. The statement "the derivation of sol is from the Latin solidus" needs a source.
  • The History section should be expanded. It should mention the economic context in which the "nuevo sol" was introduced, that is the high inflation rates of the 1980s and the loss of value of the Inti. A good source for hard numbers is http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/bcr/Cuadros/Cuadros-Anuales-Historicos.html
  • In the statement "The nuevo sol currently retains a low inflation rate of 1.5%" it should be noted if this is refers to an anual or a monthly rate. Per the reference it seems to be the latter. I think it would be better to use an anual rate.
  • The sentence "Since the new currency was put into effect, it has managed to maintain a stable exchange rate between 3.1 and 3.5 nuevo soles per United States dollar" needs a reference. For that a useful source is the eighth chart in http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/bcr/Cuadros/Cuadros-Anuales-Historicos.html
  • In the "Coins" section it would be useful to mention why was aluminum introduced for 1 céntimo coins.
  • In the "References" section a retrieval date should be added for websites.

Hope you keep improving the article. --Victor12 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)