Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Pune bombing/archive1

2010 Pune bombing

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article has good coverage and references, mainly thanks to easily available reliable sources from the international media. I want to know if it can make it to WP:GA

Thanks, SPat ^talk 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles Thank you for your contributions and your work to get this article to GA quality. Currently I don't feel that it meets the GA Criteria but you are well on your way and with a little more work it will be there. I'll give you some specific thoughts on areas of improvement below.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for thoughts on what is needed in a good lead. A lead should be a summary of every point brought up in the article. A reader should be able to read the lead and get a skeletal idea of the subject matter. The body of the article then fills in all the details. It seems as though the lead is a little sparse. I don't see much about who did the bombing, and why, I also don't read much in the lead about the investigation.
• It isn't necessary to put many sources in the lead. It is assumed that since the information is brought up in the article body and will be sourced there, then the sourcing in the lead is duplicative. That said, sourcing a very controversial statement is always a good idea no matter where it is. I think you could do without all the sources in the lead though.
• The nav box in the lead has "perpetrators" and "suspected perpetrators", given the fact that the investigation is on going it doesn't appear as though any perpetrators have been confirmed (even though a group has called in claiming responsibility). I would recommend moving all the groups into "suspected perptrators".

 Done Removed (or moved) most of inline citations, and expanded info.SPat ^talk

Location and time

• Is the name of the bakery, "The German Bakery"? If so then it's fine but if it has a proper name it should be mentioned here.

Yes, that's the name SPat ^talk

• The first time an abbreviation is used it should be spelled out, LPG should be spelled out here.

 Done SPat ^talk

Victims

• I think it would work better for the prose to be above the list rather than below it. This is really a presentation issue but given the size of the image in the previous section the formatting of the article looks a little off.

 Done Table did look bad, especially with the new image SPat ^talk

• There is no mention of compensation paid to the victims except in the quote by the Chief Minister. You may want to expand on this a little. I was surprised to read about compensation to the victims' families in this section, it just seemed a bit out of place. It's important information I just think it would be better in a later section.

I can't find any other reference. I believe it's usual for major leaders to announce compensation etc. immediately after the attacks. SPat ^talk

• No need to link country names to the generic article about the country. I delinked them but something to consider in the future. See WP:LINK for more information on this.

Not sure I understand this, do you mean the list of countries in the table? SPat ^talk

Equipment

• Please spell out abbreviated words the first time they are used: RDX.

Did it elsewhere, but not applicable here, RDX is the most common usage of the word. SPat ^talk

Initial hypotheses about the perpetrators and motives

• Expand FBI
• The following sentence has a problem,

"Within the first few hours of the attack the Indian media started speculating the attack was aimed as a blow to such talks."

I added a template to the end of this sentence. You indicate that, "...the Indian media started speculating...." but there is no citation and you need to be more specific than just the Indian media. This statement strays into weasel wording, which is to be avoided in WP articles. Please cite the sentence and specify at least one credible media source in the text.

• One and two sentence paragraphs (stubs) are looked down on by GA reviewers, consider expanding or combining.

Investigation

• Is this the most current information? I know the investigation is on-going so it will be important to update the section as more information comes out.
• Since this is such a developing story one thing to consider is the stability of the article and the information. It is generally discouraged to nominate articles for GA or FA if the information is in a high state of flux, meaning that new information is coming out frequently. Current event article nominations are usually discouraged until enough time has past that the content is fairly established and concrete. Does that make sense?
• The section is several short paragraphs, can some of these be combined?

Reaction

• I would suggest moving this from a list into prose. Lists are ok but if they can be converted into prose this is generally better. See WP:LIST for thoughts on using lists in articles.

References

• Ref # 37 appears to be a dead link, you'll need to repair it.
• The references have a lot of little inconsistencies. For example, The Hindu should be italicized if it's a newspaper, sometimes it is and other times it isn't. Also there are some missing accessdates. Also there are missing publishers like in Ref 19. It will be important to make the reference section consistent.

Overall

• I think your right is very good, a copy edit wouldn't hurt but the flow of the article is good and it doesn't bog down with unnecessary detail.
• I would consider waiting to nominate the article for GA consideration until the situation has settled a little bit. It is still a fairly recent event and the situation is developing day by day.

You're well on your way with this article so keep up the good work. This concludes my review. If you have any questions or concerns you can contact me on my talk page. Cheers. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've incorporated some of the changes, and am working on the others. I've also added an image that I just acquired from flickr.SPat ^talk 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)