Wikipedia:Peer review/Russo-Georgian war/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 South Ossetia war/archive1)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure about whether there are some statement that need more support and to see how well it conforms to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. But most of all, some outside the box ideas on how to improve this page in any way and make it an easier read for the viewer. Reviewing this article is quite a task, but I think it could really make FA status with some new suggestions from uninvolved users to improve it's readability.
Many Thanks, Outback the koala (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Danger comments:
- This is not a list. If you would like to have this article featured, it will need to comply with the featured article criteria. More to come.--Danger (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion regarding size: Make sure to use summary style. Consider moving details, for example, of specific events to the articles for those events. This article needs a lot of paring down. It nearly crashes my browser and my technology is up to date. 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments
- Wow! It's a hell of an article. It's very big. The stats are:
- File size: 584 kB
- Wiki text: 186 kB
- Prose size (text only): 77 kB
- If you wish to get this to Featured Article status you may have to bring it more into line with WP:SIZE. I confess its length did start to grind me down after a while, so I would approve of some streamlining. However, I do appreciate that part of the reason for its length is the desire to report the conflict from all sides, which is something I support.
- Good maps and pictures, they really add to the article, well done.
- However, some of the images have 'permissions' given only in a foreign language. These should be translated.
- A couple of the images, eg File:Georgian_army_leaving_South_Ossetia.jpg have watermarks on. The file has a notice saying that the watermark should be removed.
- Very good work overall; lots of references, incredibly thorough, good job. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)