Wikipedia:Peer review/Uruguay/archive1

Uruguay

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the most important article on Project Uruguay. We've been trying to upgrade it to Good Article for quite some time and some help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, NicoBolso (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments along the WP:GACR

1: No obvious issues surrounding spelling and grammar. However, the article does not currently comply with all the MOS guidelines listed. The lead should be 3 or 4 paragraphs only, however there are two history paragraphs so combining and trimming that should be simple. However, aside from history many topics don't seem to be mentioned. The lead should be a summary of the article, however some topics that have been deemed important enough to get their own sections in this article are not mentioned in the lead. There is also the issue that many sources in the lead appear only there. The lead should not contain any information that is not in the article, but having references only in the lead indicates this is not the case. (A good lead might have zero references, if all relevant information can be easily found within the article.) The final sentence of the current lead is also odd. Devoting a whole sentence to a single article from a single publication is WP:UNDUE. The rest of the article does not meet WP:MOSBODY. The article has numerous very short sections, some as short as a single paragraph. The text itself is organised poorly in some areas, with paragraphs that consist of a single short sentence.

2: There are numerous unsourced statements scattered throughout the article. Of the sources included, they mostly look reliable, but a few, such as "Ola Uruguay Real Estate and Investments" and "Explore Uruguay" do not inspire confidence.

3: The article is sufficiently broad. Its prose is 54 kB, which is within the 40-60kB recommendation of WP:SIZE. However, balance should be considered for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. For example, in the current article the History section is three times as long as the Geography section. The Foreign Relations section discusses a single incident regarding a paper mill. It also opens with UNASUR membership, which Uruguay has now withdrawn from. A whole subsection is devoted to Religion, which is as long as the main Demographics text, and whose text doesn't seem to justify that much prominence. (The same applies to other subsections throughout the article.) There is almost nothing discussing Uruguayan Culture as a topic, with the section being almost a list of examples instead.

4: No glaring neutrality issues jump out.

5: The article seems reasonably stable for a country article.

6: There are far too many images, with many seeming mostly decorative. Selective images have much more impact, and currently images are wildly out of place. For example, I see the Köppen–Geiger climate classification map as appearing near the text on legislative government. (That is also a pretty meaningless image, it's almost a single colour.)

The examples I give are merely representative of the issues, they are not exhaustive. I hope these comments are useful, CMD (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)