Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eritrea/archive2

Eritrea
Since the first time it was nominated it has undergone major edits cleaning up wording, fixing citations and style. It has been put under two peer reviews since then.--Merhawie 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Eritrea/archive1
 * Looks promising, well laid out. Need to either black the red links or whip up some stubs. Cas Liber 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object—The writing and organisation are way below standard.
 * "The State of Eritrea is a country in northern East Africa." Tension between "State" and "country". This is the opening sentence.
 * "The Sudan"—old-fashioned colonial term (the ...)—it's an ellision, and spelt out would be "the Sudan region". Better to remove "the".
 * "also includes"—please no; one of these is clearly redundant unless you've just told us about something else it "includes".
 * "Contemporary Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia after a thirty-year war which lasted from September 1, 1961 to May 29, 1991." Remove the first word, which is redundant. If the war lasted that long, why give precise dates?
 * "Eritrea is officially a parliamentary democracy consisting of six regions and defines itself as a multilingual and multicultural nation." Think carefully about the ideas you've jammed into the one sentence. Are they smoothly integrated? And what does "officially" add?
 * "there are nine nationalities"—but only one nation; the term raises questions, so why not use "ethnic groups"?
 * "Eritrea is also a mineral rich country with large deposits of gold, silver and copper."—Also to what? Look at the preceding text to see why this word is inappropriate. "Mineral rich" should be hyphenated. It's odd to have this stuck at the end of a lead in which nothing is said about the economy.
 * "There is no official language in Eritrea, rather it has three working languages, Tigrinya, Arabic, and English, and Italian is still sometimes spoken as a commercial language." The punctuation trashes this sentence.

The ideas are chucked together without attempting to create an integrated lead that will do what WP says it should do. The same organisational and writing problems are evident in the rest of the article. There seem to be people working on getting Libya up to scratch after its recent ... ahem ... promotion; perhaps they might band together to support rapid improvement of this one. We need more Africa-related FAs. Tony 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - poor organization. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was reading the articles too fast during the process of nominations. I will do a better job next time. But in your article, I didn't like how the whole article was organized and the orders of sections. Individual articles were very good though. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)