Wikipedia:Peer review/Religious nationalism/archive1

Religious nationalism
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article was recently separated out from its main article Nationalism. Of primary importance now is adding citations and increasing the worldwide view.

Furthermore, the text has been written by a university class in their first foray into using WP as a teaching tool. I would like them to see the value of the wiki-method and how we can help improve their work.

Best, Witty Lama 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that needs a fair amount of work to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style better. Here are some suggestions for improvement: The article is quite short as is - the good news is that it should fairly easy to expand. The bad news is I've run out of suggestions - hope these help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As already noted by the tag on the article "This article has no lead section." Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a one to two paragraph summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is that all of the section headings should be mentioned in the lead in some way. Also the text should repeat the lead - nothing major should only be in the lead.
 * The main problem with the article as written is that it has very few references - See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Without refs, some of the assertions made may be interpreted as Original Research, which is not allowed. See WP:NOR
 * For example, every section needs at least one ref (as India now does and none of the others do). The rest of the article also needs refs too - every paragraph needs a ref, as do any stats or extraordinary statements
 * Each of the sections are quite short as now written (all but one are just one sentence) and need to be expanded, or if they cannot be expanded, combined.
 * I would consider adding Iran under the Ayatollahs, Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps religious rebel movements


 * State Shinto in Japan prior to the end of World War II would be a good topic for this article to address. It would give the article additional depth of coverage. Fg2 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)