Wikipedia:Peer review/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto/archive1

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

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 peer review because I think it is a well written, neutral article with lots of sources. I cannot find any faults with it, but I would like a few other opinions before nominating for GA or maybe even FA status depending on what other editors think. I don't think the fact that she was only assassinated in December 07 should hold back this article's nomination to FA status.

Thanks, Zaindy87 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automated review for this article on the given link. How come? Zaindy87 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I somehow didn't copy it in the right place - fixed now, sorry APR _t 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments on the article:

The head image appears to have some fair use/copyright issues that need to be resolved

The head image looks set to be deleted, so I replaced it with the other valid fair use image in the article. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of references, but a few are not properly formatted and do not have access dates

Fixed. --Zaindy87 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Template:Campaignbox Pakistan attacks go at the bottom of the article? I am not used to seeing it at the top but maybe it is allowed?

WP:NAV states that there is no set policy on the position of navigation templates in an article. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Peoples Party is spelled out and abbreviated in different places. Be consistent. Either spell it out the whole time or just once and use the abbreviation therafter. I think always spelling it out is best.

All mentions of the "PPP" have been changed to full form. --Zaindy87 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the aftermath subsections are just 1-2 sentences long and probably do not merit their own subsection title. Maybe they should just be combined into a general aftermath section.

I have expanded the economy section by about 75% of it's previous size. The PPP section is the shortest, but the information in it really dosen't fit in any other category of the "aftermath" section. --Zaindy87 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under responsibility there is an external link at the end of the text rather than a reference.

Done. --Zaindy87 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Layout the external links section should come after the references.

Done. --Zaindy87 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the citations but they seem to be a bit too much in some places. Do you need four references for when she was declared dead? Also some more pictures would be good. Some ideas might be to put freely licensed pictures of Bhutto, and Musharraf and any other important figures you are discussing. Biomedeng (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of references are required for some claims because there are always people claiming something contrary to what really happened with a thing like this assassination. Some people say she died instantly, some say she died at the hospital. References are there to prove which version of events is most widely accepted. And pictures have been added to the article, including one excellent picture showing a damaged building after the riots. --Zaindy87 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]