Jump to content

Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user df576567etesddf (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 10 November 2012 (wiping African peer review page for a fresh start). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archived peer reviews from 2007 to 2009. Archive created in 2012, after over three years' total inactivity on the African peer review page; see here for the associated discussion.


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a definitive and useful NPOV article on the event, with an eventual aim of making it a featured article. I'd like to know:

  • is it clear?
  • are there any points of interest you think should be added?

I'd also like to know how to request assistance for input rather than just a review, to help with

  • adding sources other than the official website for the event
  • adding criticisms and counter-critcisms

Thanks, d<3vid seaward | Talk 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I had never of this day outside of the United States, interesting article but needs work. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should probably be two paragraphs at least. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Any chance for a free image or two of these girls at work?
  • Several places do not have references and need them - for example the History section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • ALmost all of the refs are from Ccell - what have independent third-party sources said about this topic? Do newspapers cover it or are there editorials or opinion pieces on it? I do not know of such sources, but it seems like they should be out there.
  • Many of the paragraphs andsections are very short (one or two sentences) and should be combined with oithers or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Many of the sections seem lacking details - "History" lists nine days but only two themes and nothing on development, participation (numbers) etc. Or in the Citicisms and concerns section, sayiong "The criticisms and concerns of any corporate social responsibility initiative also apply to this one." is bunk - cite specifics or get rid of this section.
  • Bold text is overused - see WP:ITALIC
  • See also is only for articles that exist, not red links

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is the biography of the leading Chad rebel commander. I want to ask a review of this article so to see how far it is from a potential A-class category, and what is most necessary to be done. The great lack, as all may notice, is the lack of images; there's little I can do, unfortunately, as free images of prominent Chadians are in general extremely rare (there's only one in wikipedia, and it's that of the current President of the country).--Aldux (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

[edit]

Quite nice, overall. A few minor suggestions:

  • There's a lot of redlinks in the article; any chance of getting some of the more prominent ones stubbed out?
  • Are there images available of any of the events, particularly in the civil war? Maps could potentially work here, if nothing else can be found.
  • Should there be succession boxes for his political posts, or are they all single-holder things?

Keep up the good work! Kirill 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very well written article compared to most African countries and I believe has a chance at FA and may be GA status already. I am looking for specifics about everything: image placement, sentence structure, citations...


Thanks, §tepshep¡Talk to me! 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biomedeng (talk):

  • I am not sure about the IPA pronnounciation listed. Reference.com shows it as /ruˈɑndə/, but I am perhaps the last person you would want to ask about this. Still it seems to me that the two a's in Rwanda have different pronnounciation.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article. Check out WP:LEAD. I think for this article the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs.
  • The history section is too long for this article that is supposed to be about the country. There is already a History of Rwanda article which most of this information should be put and only summarized in this article.
  • At the end of rebuilding there is an external link instead of inline citation
  • While the text is easy to understand I think the article could bennefit from some copyediting. One problem is that most paragraphs are short (several one-sentence paragraphs). Also some of the sections just read like a list of facts rather than well-organized prose that flows well.
  • Administrative divisions section is just a list (needs more supporting text to explain)
  • I think the article could bennefit from more images. For example you should put some political figure in the politics section, maybe one of Paul Kagame. The economy section could also bennefit from an image.
  • The footnote in the infobox doesn't seem to be associated with any particular statistic in the infobox. If it is just a general comment then why does it have a 1 in front of it?
  • Some of the references could be reformatted to wikipedia style guidelines (adding accessed dates for urls, ISBNs for books). See the citation templates.
  • There are several places of unreferenced information, including some whole paragraphs without any references.

I think with some more work (spinning off a lot of the history to the history article, adding more images and citations, copyediting) you should submit for GA status. Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've originally started this article to fill a red link, but then I started taking interest in finding sources, so it progressively expanded to reach a respectable 30KB. I've attempted to source it the most carefully possible, and it seems to be mostly ok on this side; what worries me most is 1) the absence of images 2) the prose, as I'm no native 3) I've been quite extensive in the description of the constitution as approved in 1996, maybe too extensive; what do you think? Any suggestion, even brief hints, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Aldux 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I just put together the page this past week with a DYK entry making the main page today. I myself am not that familiar with the disinvestment campaign nor the general circumstances surrounding it as I am not South African nor was I alive at the time of this campaign. As such, I am looking for feedback in the following areas:

  • Is the topic adequately covered? Are there any major aspects of the campaign or its effects that I missed?
  • Is the article organization sufficient?
  • General constructive criticism of any nature.

Last, but not least, I am admittedly not the most skilled writer, thus any copy editing help is most than welcome. --CGM1980 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of things like "According to Lisson" and "Knight writes"; this isn't an essay for university (it could almost double as one, though—it smells like university material).
  • It is organised and written well. Any prose concerns would be largely negligible.
  • Scrap the criticism section and integrate this into the article itself.
  • Enlarge the "Effects on South Africa" section. The article seems to be a lot of talk, talk, talk (the campaign) and then we only have a few paragraphs about its actual effects (the economics).

Michael talk 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a more global perspective. For example, in New Zealand the New Zealand Insurance (NZI) company was picked by the anti-apartheid movement as one company which invested in South Africa, and some hundreds of people bought a minimum parcel of shares in the company each and then turned up en masse to AGMs to ask awkward questions and move motions for the company to disinvest. The anti-apartheid protesters made up a sizable proportion of the people attending the AGMs and couldn't be excluded because they were shareholders, but they had a tiny proportion of the votes. I think the campaign wound up when NZI sold its South African subsidiary. A similar campaign was waged on South British Insurance. I'd add this myself but I don't know of any reliable sources to cite. http://unctc.unctad.org/data/e84iia5.pdf mentions these two companies in relation to South Africa, but not the campaign waged in New Zealand. Anti-apartheid organisations in other countries doubtless pursued their own strategies.-gadfium 04:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a couple of partial sources: [1] and [2].-gadfium 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article, and it seemed to be very comprehensive about an interesting subject, well written, researched, and cited sources (which need to be /ref'ed in wikistyle). I've placed it in the main peer review section, and the article's talk page is bare, so I think it would be great to get some peer review from some editor/experts. There are many interesting photos and I think it would be nice to get some review for FA preparation. Thanks. Rhetth 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've moved most of the references to standard Wiki format. e.g. there are now 'refd' footnotes. Some of them need standardising though. The article is pretty comprehensive... perhaps one or more sections could be split out into sub articles? I'd say the Date Cultivars section is probably most promising. - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]