Wikipedia:Peer review/Sir Creek/archive1
Sir Creek[edit]
Any expansion on any topic needed for FA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Review by bcasterline[edit]
Looks fairly comprehensive. A few things (forgive me if I'm nitpicking):
- Lead could be improved, I think. The last two mini-paragraphs are not summary of the following article, and the various historical incidents mentioned later in the article are not included.
- Some of the wording could be improved: the use of "supposedly" in "...which the Sir Creek is supposedly not" connotes (to me) that the author thinks it probably is; and "Another point that irks Pakistan is..." is a litle awkward.
- You might consider separating "Dispute" into "Basis for the Dispute", which would detail the reasons for the dispute, and "History", which would include events like the Atlantique Incident and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. A single section might be best -- but something to think about.
- Since the subject of the article is Sir Creek, not Sir Creek dispute, you might want to include more information on the creek itself -- geography and so on. There are a couple of sentences in the lead about the creek, but the rest of the article is about the dispute.
Good work. -- bcasterline • talk 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try and incorporate the same. Only problem is the geography... references are really hard to find. I'll probably have to clone it from the Rann of Kutch =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)