Wikipedia:Peer review/List of development projects in Dubai/archive1

List of development projects in Dubai
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review ,because in my point of view it can well become a featured list

Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'''Brianboulton comments:-
 * Lead: I suspect that English is not your first language, and as a result the whole lead needs a thorough copyedit; the prose is weak.  Here are several examples:-
 * "from oil-based economy" → "from an oil-based economy"
 * "real estate and other developments..." What is the nature of these "other developments"?
 * "2004-2007" requires an en-dadsh, not a hyphen
 * Second sentence bgins "It is a part..." What does "It" refer to?
 * "Dubai Strategic plan 2015" - if this is a formal policy document, "plan" should be "Plan"
 * There are multiple issues with the rest of the second sentence: part of the Dubai Strategic Plan (capital P); comma after "ruler of Dubai"; "maintain economic growth" not ''the economic growth"; "to bring Dubai on the map of the world" presumably should be "to put Dubai on the world map".
 * "iconic city" - is Dubai a city? I thought it was an emirate.
 * These are only examples - my list could be much longer. Hence the need for a full copyedit


 * Lists: I've only looked at the first one, which looks unfinished.
 * Empty spaces in some of the "Developer" cells
 * Some estimated completion dates cited, others not. What are the sources for the uncited dates? Also some blank cells. From a presentational viewpoint dates look best centred in the column
 * Costs: currencies not clear - what is AED? What is Dhs? Does $ refer to US dollars? If so, why does one cell dhow "USD"? Amounts should be formatted consistently you have, for example, "$ 4 billion", "$81 billion", USD 16 Billion, USD 275,000 etc. Also some amounts are cited, others not. And there are blanks.
 * Why are the "areas" useful information? The diverse nature of these projects means that areas are in no way comparable.
 * Most of the information in the Descripion column is uncited.
 * Similar comments apply to the other lists.


 * References: all bare urls at the moment. They need to be properly formatted, with (minimally) title, publisher and last access date.

In conclusion, I think this has been brought prematurely to peer review, and much more work is required before it can be considered properly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on this article, thanks for your valuable suggestions and comments.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)