Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian Afghan detainee issue/archive1

Canadian Afghan detainee issue
This peer review discussion has been closed. I need some serious feedback about this article's general direction, as I may be pushing it towards a GA nomination sometime soon. But as I update some of the content on actual allegations, I want to make sure it does not have POV issues (since most of the material has been contributed by myself and another editor), has good form to meet GA criteria #3 (especially in respect to the document section), and has no other issues barring it from a chance in being nominated for GA status.

Thanks a bunch in advance. -- Natural  R X 03:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks really good to me, although I must confess it is not a topic I was familiar with before reading the article, so I am not a great judge on its comprehensiveness or neutrality (though it reads to me like it is both comprehensive and neutral). Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The disambig links tool in the toolbox here find a few dabs that need to be fixed.
 * Similarly the external link checker finds two dead links and some others that may have issues
 * The lead is decent but does not mention two of the sections of the article (prorogation and public opinion), which I think it should as a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD
 * I think it might help to make it clearer that this is the Canadian Liberal government (since the previous sentences were about Afghanistan): The Liberal government at the time, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, chose to have the Canadian Forces hand over its prisoners...
 * Again it might help to clarify things a bit here: After NATO took command in [Afghanistan in] 2003, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse at the hands of the United States armed forces [in Iraq] came to the attention of the public, ...
 * Shouldn't it be "and" (not "or") in ...started transferring detainees to Afghan security forces, which comprised the Afghan National Army (ANA) or the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS).[4] since the ANA and the NDS made up the Afgahn security forces
 * I would briefly identify O'Connor in Members of the opposition requested [Minister of Defence] Gordon O'Connor to renegotiate the prisoner transfer agreement, ... also would it read better to say "...requested that [MoD] Gordon O'Connor renegotiate..."?
 * A bit unclear: While maintaining otherwise until March 2007, O'Connor apologized to the Canadian House of Commons for previously misleading them on the Red Cross issue.[9] Per
 * I would explicitly add something like "by Canadian forces" at the end of In April 2007, The Globe and Mail published interviews with 30 men who claimed they were "beaten, starved, frozen and choked after they were handed over to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security".[12] just to make it very clear
 * Is it Access to information or freedom of information in Canada? Is there a difference between the two? If not why use both phrases?
 * The header "Surfacing of allegations" seems a bit clunky - would "Allegations surface" work?
 * Make sure all abbreviations are spelled out on first use, so "Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had" for example
 * Numbers less than 10 are generally spelled out per WP:MOSNUM so fix things like  Details of the torture on 7 detainees, labelled 'Prisoner A' through 'G'...
 * Seems to be missing something Opposition MPs in the House of Commons have called for all documents the government had regarding the detainee issue, including reports to the government by Richard Colvin[, to be made public].
 * Remove "last Wednesday" and make sure there are no inadvertent copy and paste sections in the article - see  "There's a mandatory obligation on public officials to ensure that when information is released that it is in compliance with the Canada Evidence Act," MacKay said last Wednesday.
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Peter Mackay is linked twice in the section "Dispute over documents and parliamentary committees" for example
 * I think I would just list names of people there are no free images of - the camera no image icon is a bit odd looking repeated three times
 * Prorogation is something many readers will not be familiar with - although it is linked, I still think it would help to give a brief explanation of it (a phrase or sentence) - see WP:PCR
 * Per WP:See also, the See also section is generally for links not already in the article
 * One potential problem with this article is that it seems to be an ongoing issue and has not been resolved (so that may present difficulties - is the article really complete?)