Wikipedia:Peer review/Rwanda/archive1

Rwanda
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very well written article compared to most African countries and I believe has a chance at FA and may be GA status already. I am looking for specifics about everything: image placement, sentence structure, citations...

Thanks, §tepshep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Biomedeng (talk): I think with some more work (spinning off a lot of the history to the history article, adding more images and citations, copyediting) you should submit for GA status. Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the IPA pronnounciation listed. Reference.com shows it as /ruˈɑndə/, but I am perhaps the last person you would want to ask about this.  Still it seems to me that the two a's in Rwanda have different pronnounciation.
 * The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article. Check out WP:LEAD.  I think for this article the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs.
 * The history section is too long for this article that is supposed to be about the country. There is already a History of Rwanda article which most of this information should be put and only summarized in this article.
 * At the end of rebuilding there is an external link instead of inline citation
 * While the text is easy to understand I think the article could bennefit from some copyediting. One problem is that most paragraphs are short (several one-sentence paragraphs).  Also some of the sections just read like a list of facts rather than well-organized prose that flows well.
 * Administrative divisions section is just a list (needs more supporting text to explain)
 * I think the article could bennefit from more images. For example you should put some political figure in the politics section, maybe one of Paul Kagame.  The economy section could also bennefit from an image.
 * The footnote in the infobox doesn't seem to be associated with any particular statistic in the infobox. If it is just a general comment then why does it have a 1 in front of it?
 * Some of the references could be reformatted to wikipedia style guidelines (adding accessed dates for urls, ISBNs for books). See the citation templates.
 * There are several places of unreferenced information, including some whole paragraphs without any references.