Wikipedia:Peer review/Lahore/archive1

Lahore

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for FA.So comments and edits are welcome.

Thanks, User:Yousaf465 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huntthetroll comments: This is a beautiful article about a beautiful city, but it's not quite FA-quality yet. A few nitpicks, mostly about grammar and style because I only have a passing knowledge of Pakistan's history:

The following sentence in the introduction needs to be re-written for clarity: "Mughal structures such as the Badshahi Mosque, Ali Hujwiri, Lahore Fort, Shalimar Gardens and the mausoleums of Jehangir, and Nur Jehan are popular tourist spots in the city." The multiple conjuctions and inclusion of scholar Ali Hujwiri as a "structure" could confuse some readers—I mean, you and I can tell, for instance, that the sentence is referring to Hujwiri's tomb rather than the man himself, but less astute readers might not.
- I've attempted to fix the problem with this alteration. Let me know what you think. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence states that some older structures in Lahore "still retain their Mughal-Gothic style." This piques my curiosity. What, exactly, is "Mughal-Gothic style"? Is it a kind of architecture? I can't tell from this sentence, or, for that matter, from the rest of the article—indeed, this is the only mention of Mughal-Gothic anything in the entire text. Perhaps a link or two would help, or maybe additional information in the body of the article.
- I found out that this phrase does in fact refer to a style of British colonial architecture known as Indo-Gothic or Indo-Saracenic. Therefore, I changed the above sentence to reflect that. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the second introductory paragraph, the comments about linguistic change in Lahore and the nickname Lahori Punjabi could definitely use some citations.
Throughout the article, there are quite a few glaring ^{[citation needed]} tags that need to be addressed, especially in the History and Culture sections—which, come to think of it, might also benefit from being broken into subsections. The citations themselves could use some formatting; I tend to use templates from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources when I have to format citations.
There is also a light smattering of subtle grammatical errors throughout the article: missing definite articles, run-on sentences, random capitalization, random boldface, etc. I think some of it is just sneaky vandalism.
- Cleaned up the History section—still needs citations, subsections and POV-checking, though. Huntthetroll (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Organized the History section into subsections & organized images into a gallery so they don't mess up the formatting. Huntthetroll (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also cleaned up geography & climate, civic administration & economy sections. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a big no-no: one of the citations refers to another Wikipedia article, the List of countries by GDP (PPP). We can't have Wikipedia articles citing other Wikipedia articles; otherwise the encyclopedia would tend to become a giant echo chamber, entirely divorced from anything resembling objective reality.
- The information alleged to have come from the other Wikipedia article didn't even agree with what the article said. I removed both the inaccurate information and the spurious citation. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely help out with fixing the grammar and cleaning up the style, but the lack of citations worries me. I'm not sure I can help with that, as I suspect that I would have to sift through sources written in languages that I do not understand (like Punjabi and Urdu). All in all, though, this is a detailed and fascinating article with great FA potential. Keep up the good work representin' Pakistan on Wikipedia. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: To be honest, this article needs a lot of work. It's full of dubious information, and often poorly written misinformation at that. However, it also contains a lot of useful, relevant and verifiable information. I think that you could greatly improve the article simply by finding more references, and double-checking what's already in the article against those references. Given the size of the article and the importance of its subject, it needs at least twice as many citations as it has. If you can fix that, this article will be much, much closer to being FA material. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]