Wikipedia:Peer review/Friends of South Asia/archive1

Friends of South Asia

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it refers to an American anti-war group that's frequently criticized online by Indian or Hindu nationalists who disagree with the group's positions (e.g. see archived talk page). I'm worried that the debates around whether Friends of South Asia is good or evil have often overshadowed article quality. I want help with:

• how to make the article read better, and make it more useful to readers?
• does the article feel POV? if so, how to decrease it?
• what details are lacking? what details are too specific?
• nearly half the text of the article is devoted to criticism of the group -- is that appropriate or in line with other such pages, and/or how can that be consolidated or made more useful to readers? is there a certain threshhold of notability for a criticism?

Thanks, Anirvan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• 'In February 2006, Mihir Meghani, president of the Hindu American Foundation was quoted in Silicon Valley newspaper Metroactive saying that "It's pretty well known that they're [FOSA] tied with the Communist Party in India...It's really a ploy to break down and dissemble Hinduism."'

Is this quote accurate? 'dissemble' makes no sense in this context; 'disassemble', though, might.

• 'George Thundiparambil...': this section is pretty vague. Usually if one is engaged in 'anti-national' activities, it's pretty clear what concrete actions one is taking or advocating, eg. assassinating national politicians or cutting some weapons program or other. --Gwern (contribs) 05:36 23 July 2010 (GMT)

Gwern, thanks for the feedback.

• Meghani did indeed say that FOSA was a Communist ploy to "dissemble Hinduism." I've added a "[sic]" to make that clear.
• The entire George Thundiparambil section is incredibly unclear. I did a rewrite for clarity. Basically, a reviewer says that articles in a book collectively criticize several groups (including FOSA), but without giving any specific details. (There are also no references to the existence of this book besides this reviewer's review.) -- Do you think it's reasonable to consider this a vague and non-notable criticism?

Thanks, Anirvan (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A little copy-editing i think needs to be done. Eg- "The local vigils grew out of a series of vigils for peace in South Asia held simultaneously in 18 cities around the world.[9]" no need for repetition.

its pretty well sources so no queries there.

Trying asking what you would want to know as a lay reader and what is lagging. You've got criticism, but you also then need the praise. Someone must have reacted positively to the initiatives. How is the group organised? Who are the leaders?, etc.

And then broaden the lead to summarise content (ie- briem mention of actitivies and criticism)(Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC));