This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is a good candidate for featured article candidate. This page has been extensively worked on, and everyone has meticulously worked to make sure everything is accurate and referenced. We are hoping to get good feedback on how to clean up/improve the article, so that it is an article of highest quality. The sections I think should be reviewed are Results section, to make sure it is cleaned up properly and everything is referenced and accurately represented.
Thanks, Harish89 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a huge amount of work has been put into this, it needs much more work to make the Featured Article criteria. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be more than four paragraphs, but the current lead is eleven paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article may need fewer sections / header too
- There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in a few cases. Just in the lead there are six or seven such paragraphs.
- There are several places that need references. FOr example the whole Electronic voting machines section has zero refs and the sentence The previous Lok Sabha had 128 MPs with criminal cases. definitely needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. Current refs 2, 4, 5, 8 are just links now, see WP:CITE and WP:V
- There is a huge amount of data given in tables and lists - could some of this be put into subarticles per WP:Summary style?
- The article seems to me to need a better narrative thread - at present it is more a disjointed collection of various facts and data.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Canadian federal election, 1993 and South Australian state election, 2006 are both FAs and may be useful model article.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]