I've spent a lot of time placing inline citations throughout each paragraph, giving structure to the body of the text as a whole, and adding photographs. I've also improved the lead to make it more comprehensive. Am trying for Good Article status if possible. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page:
I was asked to review this article on March 18, 2012, and here is a summation of my impressions:
- The article is a great start. It is written in reasonably good prose. It is well cited, but lacking in URLs, which can be useful for fact-checking.
- The "analysis" segment can use some more sources from all countries involved - currently much of the sourcing links to Australian newspapers. It would be great to get the perspective from India, Japan, and China on this issue.
- The article can expand on what, if anything, concrete has come out of this 'dialogue' - white papers, joint declarations, military exercises, etc. etc. The results need to be clear.
- Try to avoid pipe-linking - since printed versions of the article will not reflect the link. Direct references are better. Prime example is the word 'some' under the "strategic framework" paragraph, which is linked to "Center for a New American Security." Same thing for "some within the American State Department" which links to Morton I. Abramowitz.
- The headings can use more succinct (shorter) titles. Also, Rudd's 'departure' and Gillard's 'return' can probably use better titles. "Rudd's departure" sounds like it is referring to the man's downfall in Australian politics instead of its withdrawal from the QSD.
That is all for now. A "B" rating is appropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]