Sri Lankan Civil War

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for PR because I would like the article to run as FAC. This is the first peer review of the article.

Thanks, Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

At this point, the article needs quite a bit of work before it would do well at FAC. The referencing, while a good start, is the main thing that needs to be improved. There are also scattered MOS and other issues. Specific thoughts:

• Throughout the article, there are many paragraphs and partial paragraphs that are missing references. This is the main area that needs to be focused on before a FAC.
• Remember that the FAC requirement is high quality reliable sources, not just reliable sources. There are numerous high quality books that have been written on the conflict - these should be used in place of semi-reliable or non-reliable sources such as Wikileaks.
• There are 13 dead links in the article, see this tool.
• Reference formatting needs to be improved and standardized. Web references need publishers and access dates, as well as authors and publication dates if available.
• The Combat after 18 May 2009 section should be rewritten as prose, rather than a bullet point list.
• There is a mix of British and American English used in the article - one should be chose and the article standardized.

During the course of significant referencing work, there are often major changes to prose, structure, existing references, etc. Due to this, I have not thoroughly read through the prose, or checked all of the referencing for reliability, formatting, etc. Once the referencing has been improved, WP:GAN is often a good first step before FAC, to get additional eyes on the article. If you have any questions, please ask - I've added this review to my watchlist. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comment: I largely concur with Dana's assessment, and would agree that GAN would be a good first step. You'll also need to address the maintenance tags currently on the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]