Wikipedia:Peer review/Saudi foreign assistance/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to be able to improve this article significantly (the current version is what I came up with) with others' input. The ultimate goal is to nominate it for GA, but I think there is still some work that needs to be done.
Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead should be expanded so it is 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, but Between 1975 to 1987, Saudi developmental aid amounted to US$48 billion ... is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the regions are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article has no images, there should at least be one in the upper right corner of the lead. If nothing else a Saudi Arabian map or flag might work.
- Spell out abbreviations before their first use, so for example spell out ODA and GNP
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded if possible.
- The article is unclear about dates in several places - the lead mentions 1975 to 1987, then the Saudi fund for development section only goes to 1979, but I think all of the explicit dates in the Regions and Views are from the 2000s.
- There are also several things without dates that need them to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR
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 ><>°° 03:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)