Wikipedia:Peer review/Nationalization of history/archive1

Nationalization of history
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am very unexperienced user on en wiki (this article is first article I wrote on wikipedia on english language), I am amateur in history and I feel that I need help with improving and expanding this article to the level that its topic deserves because of its importance and actuallity. I think article could be improved in lede and subtitle with legacy.

Thanks, Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement, assuming it is not merged into another article. 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; 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about this article - at the top of the article are two warning tags. One is that this is an orphan article, so few others link to it. This is not in and of itself a problem as many new articles are often orphans. ✅ The more serious concern is that there is a duplication tag, which is a major cleanup banner. ❌ This, in and of itself, is enough to disqualify the article for peer review. Since I have already looked at it, I will still make a a few comments
 * The Talk:Nationalization of history expresses the concern that this is a content fork and should perhaps be merged with the Historiography and nationalism article. I was curious so I checked out the first few references. The lead sentence has two references, but both make only limited mention of the terms "nationalization of history" and / or "Ethnicization of history" (note the correct spelling - there is a typo in the lead). Neither article includes the pharase in its title, for example. I have to say that I am not a historian, but given my limited knowledge, this looks like it could be a fork to me.
 * Google Books searches were done in a Slavic language version of Google, so some of the terms found with the links are in Cyrillic and are not sueful for an English Wikipedia article. - ✅
 * I speak no Slavic languages (beyond "Pivo nie ma!" (no more beer!) in Polish) so I could not write anything in a Slavic language, but the English here has a lot of errors typical of something written by a non-native speaker. These include missing articles - for example the first sentence would read better as something like Nationalization of history or Ethnicizaction of history [1] is [the] term used in historiography to describe [the] process of separation of "one's own" history from [the] common universal history[,] by way of perceiving, understanding and treating the past that results with construction of history as history of a nation.[2] - ❌ ✅, but only for the first sentence.
 * Superscripts for centuries are against the WP:MOS (just write "19th century") - ✅
 * The article uses both American (Nationalization) and British (civilisation) spellings - pick one and stick with it - ✅
 * The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and section, which interrupot the flow of the prose. These should wither be combinedwith others or expanded if possible.
 * Watch WP:PEACOCK terms like masterpiece in First phase began at the middle of 19th century and reached its culmination in Mykhailo Hrushevsky's masterpiece “History of Ukraine - Rus". This is also a WP:NPOV issue - note if you quote a reliable source saying it is a materpiece, then that is more acceptable. ✅
 * There is a sandwich of text between two images at the bottom of the article, which WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid. ✅
 * One of the sandwiching photos is of the Srebrenica Genocide stone and the other is of James Macpherson. Neither is mentioned anywhere else in the text that I could see - images should illustrate the text, and the subjects of images should be discussed in the text in some way. ✅
 * I do not think the See also section follows WP:See also - why the list of "Histories of nations"? The one I checked does not even include the word nationalization. Why were these links included and others not? ✅ - I deleted few selected nation histories.
 * Antidiskriminator's reply: Yes, your comments are, of course, very helpful both for me personally and for improving the article. I really appreciate your comments and time and energy that you spent to write them. Since I am creator and (till now) main contributor to this article, I need some time (a week or two, since I am going to be busy during next week) to carefully study your comments and to perform corresponding corrections and replies, since I am inexperienced user and English is obviously not my native language. I would appreciate if I can have this few weeks before making decision about eventual merging.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has not been nominated for deletion or officially for merging (though it has been suggested that it be merged on the talk page). I do not plan to nominate it for deletion, but someone else may do so. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)