Wikipedia:Peer review/Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition/archive2

Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition[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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am listing this article for peer review. The article has been stable on content for a long time. It recently underwent a major rewrite and prose by an anonymous editor. I think the article is at the stage of FAC, and would like more comments before an FAC is proposed. Thanks, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement mostly language nit-picks and a few MOS issues.

Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
The bold "The" looks odd in "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, or The German mission to Kabul, was a diplomatic mission..." could it be "or the German mission to Kabul, was"?
I would identify the prince as Indian in Nominally headed by the exiled prince Raja Mahendra Pratap...
I would wikilink the Raj in to propagate Asian socialist revolution and attempt to overthrow the British Raj.
I think I would move World War I much earlier in this sentence to make it clearer In August 1914, alliance obligations arising from the war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary brought Germany and Russia to war, while Germany's invasion of Belgium directly triggered Britain's entry into what quickly became World War I. perhaps something like In August 1914, World War I broke out when alliance obligations arising from the war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary brought Germany and Russia to war, while Germany's invasion of Belgium directly triggered Britain's entry.
The first sentence says the Expedition "sought to encourage Afghanistan to declare full independence from the United Kingdom" - I think the background section should do a better job explaining the political status of Afghanistan and the UK at the time.
Turkey was a part of the Ottoman Empire (the "Sick Man of Europe") at the time (until 1922 or so) and this should be made clear in the Background section too - there are a few mentions of Ottoman later, but calling it Turkey now is not really accurate
There are some places that need references - this would be a problem at FAC. For example, in Composition the last two sentences of the second paragraph have no refs, or the entire Epilogue section has zero refs! My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Identifying the maps as by Reginald (or is it Rex - be consistent) Dyer in the East Persian cordon section does not help much (Dyer is not mentioned in the text until much later and then only once). See WP:PCR

There's a start for you - 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 _><>°^° 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start acting on these soon. Cheers. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Newspaper titles in the references need to be in italics (I noted footnote 87)
- A suggestion is to find ISBNs or OCLCs for the books missing those. While not strictly necessary, it is something that helps out at FAC.
- The ISBN for the Lovett ref is for the 2001 reprint, your need to note that you're using a reprint of an earlier edition. Right now the citation implies you're using the 1920 edition.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)