Wikipedia:Peer review/Urdu keyboard/archive1

Urdu keyboard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is at the right stage for peer review to further develop into a featured content. Thanks, Isles Cape^Talk 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Right. In order:

Lead image is very low resolution - it claims to be 3000px wide, however, at full resolution is extremely blocky. JPEG quality was clearly set too low. Also, it needs to be bigger in the article - the article is about the Urdu keyboard, but the picture is far too small to be able to make out any letter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Urdu is a versatile language with the potential to expand and grow to fulfil the needs of modern communications technologies." - Odd phrasing, almost sounds like advertising. I'd suggest instead talking about the facts that make this true.
As I read it, the Urdu keyboard no longer supports Sindhi or Pushto? Do they have their own keyboard now?
It needs images of each stage of the evolution.
It's rather short; that may be an issue at WP:FAC, unless more content can be found. It could probably at least make GA, though, with some revision.

Good luck! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current ref 7 is just a plain url. Needs to be formatted to give a title in the link as well as other bibliographical information, with publisher and last access date being the very minimum.
- I note some sections are unreferenced, that will probably be a concern at FAC.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Quadell

This article needs at least one photograph. It should really have layout images or photos of several different layouts. As mentioned above, the current image should be redone, probably as an svg.
The history and evolution is covered in depth, but non-history information is light. For instance, how many people use Urdu keyboards? How common are Urdu keyboards (compared to Roman-character keyboards) among native Urdu speakers? How popular is the "standard" 4th-gen keyboard compared to older models? What are the challenges to creating one (number of characters, right-to-left script, etc.)
Did you make up the 1st gen / 2nd gen / 3rd gen / 4th gen division? Or is that from a source? The nomenclature should be explicitly sourced, or else removed.
It's rather disorganized. The "lead" paragraph should summarize what's in the article, but it gives its own information in this article. The first paragraph under "evolution" isn't mostly about the keyboard's evolution. I would organize it something like this:
1. lead
2. history
3. popularity
4. hardware and software
Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]