Wikipedia:Peer review/Khan Abdul Wali Khan/archive1

Khan Abdul Wali Khan

 * 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 May 2009.
 * 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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Abdul Wali Khan I've listed this article for peer review because…i've been working intermittently on this article over the last 3 years..its gone from good article down to a C and i would like to get it up to FAC at some stage..some help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Zak (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting person and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the article, I agree that it needs a lot more work to get back to GA, let alone up to FA. So here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN and FAC. 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is currently 6 paragraphs but WP:LEAD says not to have more than four paragraphs in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * The MOS stringly suggests putting an image in the upper right corner of the lead - since there are some images in the article already, why not use one there?
 * The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
 * Images will face very close scrutiny at FAC - the image of him with his father needs a date when it was taken (so the over 50 years old claim is justified). The second fair use image needs a fair use justification in any case - see WP:FAIR USE
 * One of the biggest problems I see is that there are several places that need references - the first paragraph of Early life has none, or the second and third paragraphs of Early politics have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Many of the references are listed as dead links. Make sure that there is enough information too - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Attribute statements better - for example in the first paragraph in Legacy identify who these critics are (and in the same paragraph Others argue that if he had compromised with Pakistan's military establishment ... needs aref and identification - who are these others?)
 * I think it is clear from the article that it is mostly a Biography - could that section header be removed?
 * Per WP:See also, See also is generally for links not already in the article (though it is a judgment call)
 * The hardest FAC criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This needs a fair amount of copyediting and polish
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.