Wikipedia:Peer review/Nelson Mandela/archive1

Nelson Mandela

 * 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 December 2008.
 * 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a good candidate for FA status, it has been copy-edited several times and there is adequate sources to the article.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two (very minor) things caught my attention:
 * Is it appropriate to have material on Mandela's ancestry in the "early life" section? Most of these events happened before he was born.
 * I did some copyediting on the reference tags. Many had spaces between punctuation and the tag, or between two tags, which is frowned upon in the style guidelines.
 * As I say, these are the minorest of quibbles. It's a very fine article. Reyk  YO!  06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is this article now ready to FA status?--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a few comments about 2 years ago (see Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 4). I think they still apply: Zaian (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is too little information about Mandela's political activities up to his arrest, e.g. his role in the ANC Youth League and his rise within the ANC.
 * The description of 1952-1959 seems to be aiming to make a point from a PAC / Africanist perpective about how irrelevant the ANC was becoming and how it was led by whites. Even if this is neutrally presented, it needs to show some relevance to Mandela's life, as this article is not a history of the ANC.
 * The section on his autobiography is patchy. Far too much about James Gregory.
 * The Blood Diamonds discussion is out of proportion.
 * Under "Acclaim", perhaps too much emphasis on Canada.