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 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.

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-relared 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 WikiProject's 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] Opération Manta

Always as part of my work on the Chadian-Libyan conflict, I've written down an article on this French military intervention in Chad, hoping to make it a GA article, like I've done with Toyota War. The most obvious defect is the lack of images, but, alas, there isn't much I can do to solve this now. Another problem may be the grammar, not being a native speaker. As for the lead, I hope it's not too long; also should I add inline citations to the lead? I haven't till now because it just presented and summarized content well referenced in the following sections.--Aldux 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bcasterline

A few comments:

  • "Background" leaves some context out. What do you mean "the fall of the Chadian capital"? What happened?
  • The first paragraph of "Stalemate" doesn't make any sense.
  • Some of the information in "French withdrawal" might belong in "Aftermath" instead.

The article looks pretty comprehensive. Could use some more copyediting for grammar/wording though. -- bcasterline • talk 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit the background, and rewritten the "Stalemate" paragraph. As for the grammar/wording, you and Picaroon have hopefully bettered it; I'm unfortunately unable to do much better.--Aldux 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider, though:

  • The "Background" section is pretty stubby; it may be worthwhile to consider some sort of rearrangement of the first sections.
  • Marking up the map a bit to show troop movements, etc., would probably be helpful.

The lead doesn't need to be directly cited if it's just a summary of the article.

Beyond that, as bcasterline said, stylistic copyediting would be appropriate, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I have simply no idea how to mark an image. Picaroon and Bcasterline have worked on the grammar and wording. I've added something to the background, but I'll try to add more. As for the "rearrangement of the first sections", could you give me some hint? In what sense do you feel the present disposition should be rearranged? Thanks, --Aldux 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PocklingtonDan

  • "by a joint force Libyan soldiers " -> "by a joint force of Libyan soldiers "
  • "on July 31 brought to the assembling in Chad " -> "on July 31 led to the assembling in Chad "
  • "drew "a line in the sand." " - if this is a quote it needs a cite, if it isn't, I would remove the quote marks
  • "with the Libyans and the GUNT controlling the north and Habré central and southern Chad" - this doesn't read write - they controlled the north and the south? What did the French control then?
  • "French President Mitterrand" - any reason he doesn't get a first name?
  • "a mutual withdrawal of their countries troops " -> "a mutual withdrawal of their countries' troops "
  • Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, should this whole article not be byu the English name Operation Stingray?? This seems to be the practice taken in all other battle and war articles I have seen.
  • "recognizing Goukouni as the legitimate ruler of Chad, and provided arming and training for his forces" - mix of tenses
  • "gave way in June 1983 to a massive joint GUNT-Libyan attack against Faya-Largeau" - don't think you mean gave way, I think rather agreed or acceeded to demands for. I think you also need to state who was calling for this.
  • "annoverating 3,000 men" - I don't understand. comprising of? consisting of? numbering?
  • "Thus assisted by weapons from France, US and Zaire" This contradicts the earlier statement that France and US contributed arms, and Zaire men.
  • "and taking advantage of the GUNT's Habré took personal command " - thisnk there is a word nmissing after GUNT's - doesn't make any sense
  • "bringing to his shattering defeat " -> "bringing him to a shattering defeat"
  • "Even if France threatened on August 25 that it would not tolerate Gaddafi's occupation of Faya-Largeau[11], even if at the end the French proved themself unwilling to openly confront Libya and retake northern Chad for Habré, thus giving the impression to concede Gaddafi the overlordship over the Borkou-Ennedi-Tibesti Prefecture" - these "even ifs" make no sense
  • "not only in the short period" -> "not only in the short term"
  • "due to Libya's incapacity to balance " -> "due to Libya's inability to balance "
  • "by stiking the GUNT at Faya-Largeau" -> striking
  • "risking to cause an escalation of the conflict." -> "risking an escalation of the conflict."
  • "two Juaguar fighter-bombers to invest the attackers " - invest means to siege, this is not a word normally applied to aircraft. perhaps harrass?
  • "rise the Red Line from the 15th to the 16th parallel" rise-> extend/retract
  • mutaual -> mutual
  • "were getting tired up with an intervention " -> "were becoming bogged down in an intervention "
  • Other than these grammatical problems I think the article is good - it gives a good overview of a conflict I knew nothing about. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your fantastic and scrupolous work controlling my gramar, Dan! You've really done a precious help thanks. I've integrated your corrections now. Grazie again!--Aldux 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I will do another run through it now and see if I can see anything else - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is in great shape but still looks like it needs the attentions of an English-speaking copyeditor I think, just to polish the language a little. I don't have time to devote to this I'm afraid, but best of luck - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan

Good article - I certainly learned something from it. A few points, however:

  • POV:
    • The United States announced that 25 million US dollars in critically needed equipment would be provided. - It's not really inferring a point of view, but it might be a point of contention to nit-pickers at some later point. I would take out the word critically, as the point still gets across without it.
  • Images: Have you tried contacting websites on the topic for the use of their images? You can be surprised how nice they can be - Morozov sure was for the Ch'onma-ho article.
  • Grammar: Quite a few problems here - the article will need a thorough copyedit. If I have time I may go through it at a later time.

JonCatalan 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "critically needed". As for the websites, I'd first have to try webite on the topics, which is quite hard - Chad isn't the best known country in the world, to use an euphemism, and it's no surprise I had to use alost exclusively books and not the web for writing this article. As for the grammar, Bcasterline, Dan and Picaroon were of considerable help, but I would IMMENSELY appreciate any help with copyediting you would give :-)))))--Aldux 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/f/r/Wikipedia%7EAfrica-related_regional_notice_board_Peer_review_2b6e.html"