Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
another editor and I are attempting to get this article up to Good Article status. We both have looked at this article for a long time and believe that the article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. In particular, I hope that someone would help suggesting ways to generally improve the content. Is there too much information? Too little? Does the layout/structure make sense? Is is grammatically correct? Are there any sudden leaps in logic? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
RDavi404 (
talk)
20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article looks to be neutral in its approach, which is commendable with such an emotionally charged subject. It also looks reasonably well organized, with some exceptions that I describe below.
The references are mostly news sources and look pretty reliable. (A reviewer might question The Idiot's Guide to Pakistan, but the author is a journalist who spent years there and is presumably well informed.) My one suggestion about sources is to find more academic and analytical sources, like the paper by C. Christine Fair or the book by Zahid Hussain. When writing articles myself, I strive to find the gist of a subject, the big picture, and make it clearly visible to the reader amid the details. Sources that analyze the situation in Pakistan, and not just news articles about the latest terrorist attack or political announcement, will help do that.
Because the article leans so heavily on news sources, it does sometimes feel choppy, with single sentences on particular events strung together into paragraphs of loosely related information. That may not be a problem in a GA review unless, because of that lack of cohesion, the article leaves out essential information—the gist that I was talking about—or confuses the reader. I saw one case where I think it does both of those things, which I describe under "Relations with other militant groups", below.
Lead
History
Relations with other militant groups
Claimed and alleged attacks
I wish you well in your efforts. Let me know if you need any other help. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
another editor and I are attempting to get this article up to Good Article status. We both have looked at this article for a long time and believe that the article would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. In particular, I hope that someone would help suggesting ways to generally improve the content. Is there too much information? Too little? Does the layout/structure make sense? Is is grammatically correct? Are there any sudden leaps in logic? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
RDavi404 (
talk)
20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article looks to be neutral in its approach, which is commendable with such an emotionally charged subject. It also looks reasonably well organized, with some exceptions that I describe below.
The references are mostly news sources and look pretty reliable. (A reviewer might question The Idiot's Guide to Pakistan, but the author is a journalist who spent years there and is presumably well informed.) My one suggestion about sources is to find more academic and analytical sources, like the paper by C. Christine Fair or the book by Zahid Hussain. When writing articles myself, I strive to find the gist of a subject, the big picture, and make it clearly visible to the reader amid the details. Sources that analyze the situation in Pakistan, and not just news articles about the latest terrorist attack or political announcement, will help do that.
Because the article leans so heavily on news sources, it does sometimes feel choppy, with single sentences on particular events strung together into paragraphs of loosely related information. That may not be a problem in a GA review unless, because of that lack of cohesion, the article leaves out essential information—the gist that I was talking about—or confuses the reader. I saw one case where I think it does both of those things, which I describe under "Relations with other militant groups", below.
Lead
History
Relations with other militant groups
Claimed and alleged attacks
I wish you well in your efforts. Let me know if you need any other help. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)