Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Peer review
The peer review department of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject 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 to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.
All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject.
Instructions
[edit]Requesting a review
[edit]- Add the article to the bottom of the Peer reviews section below by placing
=== [[Name of nominated article]] ===. - Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (
~~~~).
Commenting
[edit]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.
Peer reviews
[edit]I'm thinking of putting this up at WP:GAN. So before that, I'd like to know if there are any problems, particularly factual or neutrality related ones. Also, I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement, since this probably has some way to go before it can become a GA. Chamal talk 11:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Jasy Jatere
[edit]overall good impression, well sourced and encyclopedic. Style could be improved, but this can be done at a later stage, once all the facts are clearly established. The following are some issues
- assertions in the lead miss refs. These are present in the individual section, but not in the intro
Done
- In the initial paragraph, "fought" appeared very often
- Done I think you've fixed it yourself :)
- The overall style is rather paratactic. Try to use some subordinate clauses to make for a smoother reading
- Very often "army" is used to refer to SLA. This should be changed to SLA or Sri Lankan Army/army/forces/troops
- Done
- 57 and 57th are both used. THis should be unified
- Done
- IIRC, the cardinal points should get capital letters (North, South, East, West), but I might be wrong here
- The section timeline has too much numerical detail. Remove, or move to a table. The normal reader does not care whether there were 87 or 98 casualties
- Some military ranks are abbreviated (Maj Gen) other are not. Unify.
- Done For the LTTE commanders the ranks are only used in the infobox and I have not icluded them in the prose, since the rank of Lawrence is unknown. I thought using the ranks of only two might not look good.
- Some content is repeated, e.g. "they came from three sides" is present at least thrice
That's it. Hope that helps. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)