Wikipedia:Peer review/Bloody Sunday (1969)/archive1

Bloody Sunday (1969)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for a strong copy-edit and further source search before I take it to the "short FAC". Given the sources available in English, this is about as long as the article can be. I think if we found an editor who can read Turkish this article would be slightly longer and more comprehensive but note that The turkish wikipedia article is much shorter and unreferenced. I will also post a link to this on the Turkey Wikiproject.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

This is so short that I doubt it would pass FAC in its current state - while length is not a criterion, comprehensiveness is and this seems too short to be comprehensive.
One way to expand it would be to provide more context for the readers - more history, more background, etc. I am not an expert on Turkish history, so I am not sure what else could be added. See WP:PCR
Article is lacking a lead and has no sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way (once it has sections)
Could more be written on the second "Bloody Sunday"? Perhaps make the article on both and call it Bloody SUnday (Turkey)? Just ideas, not sire what else to say.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I initially listed this for a project that was looking at outstanding articles of <1000 words for subjects which don't have sufficient sourcing to become full featured articles. I'll check again to see if it can be expanded. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Now try to source some of the articles online (the journals). --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]