Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:AFRPR

The peer review department of the Africa-related regional notice board and WikiProject Africa 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 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 notice board and project.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

Wikipedia's Africa Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.
Shortcut:
WP:AFRPR

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review for Africa-related articles. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. To add a nomination:

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Africa noticeboard}} banner at the top of the article's talk page. If the page doesn't have a banner, add {{Africa noticeboard |peer-review=yes }}.
  2. 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.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page. A bot will automatically add the request to the main Wikipedia:Peer review page as well.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.")

If you also want to transclude the subpage to a non-Africa peer review subpage:

  1. Follow the instructions for that other peer review, except
  2. Rather than create a separate peer review, redirect to the active review. For example, if you have an article applicable to both the Africa board and WikiProject Trains, create Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article as a redirect to Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Name of nominated article
  3. Transclude to the relevant peer review subpage. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article would be transcluded to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review.

[edit] Responding to a request

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

[edit] Archiving

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 {{Africa noticeboard}} banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

Purge server cache

[edit] Requests

[edit] Mahamat Nouri

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)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

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)

[edit] Javascript review

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)

[edit] Rwanda

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

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)

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)

[edit] Constitution of Chad

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)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disinvestment from South Africa

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)

  • 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)

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)
Found a couple of partial sources: [1] and [2].-gadfium 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date cultivation in Dar al-Manasir

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)

  • 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)