Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of development projects in Dubai/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review ,because in my point of view it can well become a featured list

Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

  • Lead: I suspect that English is not your first language, and as a result the whole lead needs a thorough copyedit; the prose is weak. Here are several examples:-
    • "from oil-based economy" → "from an oil-based economy"
    • "real estate and other developments..." What is the nature of these "other developments"?
    • "2004-2007" requires an en-dadsh, not a hyphen
    • Second sentence bgins "It is a part..." What does "It" refer to?
    • "Dubai Strategic plan 2015" - if this is a formal policy document, "plan" should be "Plan"
    • There are multiple issues with the rest of the second sentence: part of the Dubai Strategic Plan (capital P); comma after "ruler of Dubai"; "maintain economic growth" not the economic growth"; "to bring Dubai on the map of the world" presumably should be "to put Dubai on the world map".
    • "iconic city" - is Dubai a city? I thought it was an emirate.
These are only examples - my list could be much longer. Hence the need for a full copyedit
  • Lists: I've only looked at the first one, which looks unfinished.
    • Empty spaces in some of the "Developer" cells
    • Some estimated completion dates cited, others not. What are the sources for the uncited dates? Also some blank cells. From a presentational viewpoint dates look best centred in the column
    • Costs: currencies not clear - what is AED? What is Dhs? Does $ refer to US dollars? If so, why does one cell dhow "USD"? Amounts should be formatted consistently you have, for example, "$ 4 billion", "$81 billion", USD 16 Billion, USD 275,000 etc. Also some amounts are cited, others not. And there are blanks.
    • Why are the "areas" useful information? The diverse nature of these projects means that areas are in no way comparable.
    • Most of the information in the Descripion column is uncited.
Similar comments apply to the other lists.
  • References: all bare urls at the moment. They need to be properly formatted, with (minimally) title, publisher and last access date.

In conclusion, I think this has been brought prematurely to peer review, and much more work is required before it can be considered properly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on this article, thanks for your valuable suggestions and comments.


Nabil rais2008 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]