Wikipedia:Peer review/War on Terror/archive1

War on Terror
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as C-class, but tremendous effort has been put into it to get it to at least B-class status. If it cannot be upgraded to B-class, I'd like to be provided with guidelines and proposals on what needs to be improved. The same applies for recommendations on further improvement, even if it reaches B-class.

Thanks, JokerXtreme (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria
I'd say this article is fairly close to being B-class. Below are some suggestions for further improvement:
 * Table of Contents is quite long - some of those smaller subsections should be merged
 * Some of the long list passages could be converted to prose
 * Al-Shabaab flag is tagged as missing source information
 * Recommend merging short 1 to 2-sentence paragraphs
 * You could reduce the number of citations in the lead, as those facts are supposed to be expanded and cited later in the article
 * Some of the CNN links are now dead
 * The article could use attention from a copy-editor, as there are a few grammatical errors and passages lacking in clarity
 * The article needs more citations. Every paragraph should have at least one citation, often more. All quotes, stats, opinions, and controversial facts need to be referenced.
 * Avoid stacking images as you do in the Enduring Freedom section
 * Be aware of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL. For example, you say "The US refused to provide any evidence." Did they just not do so, or were they asked and denied the request? It's unclear as written, and that passage is not cited
 * Image of Special Forces in the Philippines is tagged as lacking author information
 * Avoid overlinking - once a topic has been linked once, there's rarely a need to link it again later in the article
 * Explain the military terminology that you use. For example, what is a "Hearts and Minds" program?
 * Source link for image of British soldiers in Iraq is broken
 * Clinton is generally referred to as "Bill", not "William"
 * Don't use external links as references in article text - format them as citations instead
 * Double-check the dates on the ISAF map
 * Source link for the Musharraff photo is dead, as is the one for the US customs officers
 * Articles already linked in the text should not also be linked in "See also"
 * Referencing format needs to be more consistent. Web references should at minimum include a title and access date, and should also have publisher/author where available (no bare links). Book references need page numbers

Comments from MoreThings
I don't know the requirements for B- versus C- class, but all of the tags at the top of the article are appropriate, and a good place to start would be to address the issues they point out.


 * Things like this need to be cited:
 * After months of insurgents' brutal violence against Iraqi civilians, in January 2007 President Bush presented a new strategy...The Iraq War troop surge of 2007...has been credited with a widely recognized dramatic decrease in violence...
 * The Office of Strategic Influence was secretly created after 9/11 for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but was closed soon after being discovered.
 * The entire Post 9/11 events inside the United States section has just one citation.
 * This sentence doesn't really tell the reader anything she doesn't already know.
 * Researchers in the area of communication studies and political science have found that American understanding of the war on terror is directly shaped by how the mainstream news media reports events associated with the war on terror.


 * ...political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror." If we say "illustrated" then we are implicitly accepting that Kuypers' view is accurate. We should say claims, or argues, or similar.


 * But I'd say my main concern is the structure of the article. In many places it reads like a succession of lists. I notice that the great majority of citations are to web sites and news reports, which might suggest that the authors are looking around for references to support their own understanding of the subject. It would be better to rely more heavily on books about the War on Terror, of which there are many. That approach would lead to a much improved article, which would be more authoratitive, more coherent, and easier to read.--MoreThings (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've placed the tags accordingly to the guidelines by Nikkimaria above. Thanks for all the points you made, I'll look into them. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Joker. I didn't realise you'd placed the tags yourself. It sounds as though you're on top of what needs to be done, and that the article is headed in the right direction for improvement. --MoreThings (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)