Wikipedia:Peer review/Falkland Islands/archive1

Falkland Islands
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has remained stable for a number of months. Previously failed to achieve FA status due to disruptive editing from a number of sources. A group of regular editors would now like to bring this article up to FA status.

Thanks, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too).
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.
 * There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC.
 * The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed.
 * The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here.
 * This is a WP:WEIGHT concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants.
 * The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under WP:MOSIMAGE
 * I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals
 * I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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; 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)