Wikipedia:Peer review/Cambodia/archive1

Cambodia

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 it was once a Featured Article but was delisted in April 2009 (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cambodia). It has since undergone significant improvements. While I can not take credit for all of the new content, I have tried to address the concerns raised in the 2009 review while copyediting all the contributions for flow and ease of reading. I would like to see it become a Featured Article again. Any comments, concerns, or help (especially help) toward meeting the FA criteria would be appreciated.

Thanks, William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana Boomer

While I appreciate that a good bit of work has been completed on this article since the 2009 FAR, it is unfortunately still well below FA standards. Referencing is the biggest issue, although there are quite a few other niggles. Specifics:

Referencing is currently the biggest problem with regards to this article meeting the featured article criteria. There are many fully or partially unsourced sections throughout the article, many of which contain statistics, opinions or information likely to be challenged. Paragraphs that contain these three things need to be referenced for the article to even meet GA criteria, much less FA criteria. Fixing this item is going to take a significant amount of time and an editor with access to a wide range of sources on Cambodia.
Reference formatting also needs a good bit of work. Web references should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, as well as additional information such as authors and publication dates where available. Books need to have page numbers.
Reliability of references is questionable in several places. Remember that for FAC, the requirement is not just that a source be reliable, it's that it be a "high-quality" reliable source.
- What is ref #73?
- What makes ref #102 (about.com) a reliable source?
Some out-of-date information. For example, ref #99 (country-data) is from 1987, yet the information is presented as if it is current.
Expansion banner on Dance section, which should have been fixed before the article was even brought to PR.
There should not be external links in the article text, as there is in the Foreign relations section.
Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is in several places throughout the article.
Mixed English variations - I see neighbor and neighbour, meter and metre, -ization and -isation, for instance.
Dab links to Strong man, Ayutthaya, Funan
Two dead links, see here for details.

Overall, the referencing needs to be improved before much else is done. Usually, when extensive referencing work is done, the prose changes as well, and often the organization of the article, as it changes to meet the weight and importance given to the various subjects by high-quality reliable sources. It would definitely be possible to get this article up to FA standards, but it will take a lot of work. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the time you spent and your comments. I knew there was still a lot of work to do, but I have been staring at this article for so long I just couldn't see where (I don't know how I missed the expansion banner!). Your input provides a good place to start going forward. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better!--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]