This peer review discussion has been closed.
- 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 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for almost a week now once I saw the potential this article had. I would particularly like to say thanks to Mercenary2k who worked on the article before me.
I already have addressed all the concerns previously mentioned in other reviews. Since I already have background knowledge on this article, I am not sure if I am leaving anything out. Therefore might I ask that particular attention be payed to the Background section. I also have some concerns about about images. Since I am not a "image-person", it has been difficult for me to find images that fit Wikipedia's policy. I would like some comments on whether the article needs more images for its appeal.
Thanks, → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and great lead picture. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- 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, for example the reactions section is not mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on events leading up to the siege compared to the amount of text in the article itself, see WP:WEIGHT
The death toll in the infobox is 96, but the article lead says "95 casualties". I also note that casualty in military operations usually refers to all dead and wounded (plus missing and prisoners).
- Fixed There was a reason I had put it at 95 but that doesn't matter since I changed the article name. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also 11 SSG killed in the infobox, and the article says Of the 164 SSG army commandos that had laid siege to the mosque on July 3 and stormed it later, 10 were killed and 33 were wounded.[4] but the photo caption of 8 dead SSG The troops of Pakistan Army’s Special Services Group, who were killed by militants during assault on the mosque makes it seem as if only these 8 were killed.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked for feedback on photos, what is there seems OK. I would move the photo of the mosque earlier - as it is, there are two photos very close together (mosque and street, attack). The dead soldiers needs a better Fair Use template and source information.
- Fixed I moved the pictures but I am not sure what to do with the picture of the dead soliders since I do not have knowledge of Wikipeida's image policies. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Biggest complaint for the Background is to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
For example, The Lal Masjid was founded by Maulana Qari Abdullah in 1965 and is named for its red walls and interiors. should mention this is a mosque and that the name translates as Red Mosque. Also who is/was Maulana Qari Abdullah?
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem sentence General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was very close to Maulana Qari Abdullah who often gave speeches on jihad during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[14] Zia should be identified as President of Pakistan, and who (who gave speeches) is unclear - assume MQA
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another problem After the Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, the mosque continued to function as a center for radical Islamic learning and housed several thousand male and female students in adjacent seminaries.[14] the center for radical Islam is not mentioned earlier - speeches, yes, but learning, no. Same for the seminaries. When were they founded / built?
Identify Musharaf better in Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mushrraf's government...
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "the leadership of Lal Masjid" to just "Lal Masjid" in Lal Masjid and the Jamia Hafsa denied having any links with organizations now banned for supporting terrorism, but ...Also Jamia Hafsa needs to be identified before this (mentioned in the lead, but this is the Background).
- Fixed and will do--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Grammar "was became" and clarify his (Musharaf) in The mosque was became a center for speeches calling for his assassination.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the same reference is used for three sentences in a row, I would just have one ref at the end of the three sentences (unless one of those is a direct quote or statement likely to be challenged)
tense in All of them are released after the women supposedly admitted to running the brothel...
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who alleged a soft approach? Who made accusations of leniency? Specifics are helpful - An allegedly soft approach taken by the Pakistani government in dealings with the mosque led to accusations of leniency on the part of President Musharraf.[14]
- There is a citation needed tag at the end of Background and a few other places need more references, such as
However, the statements from government authorities were controversial, and according to surrendering students, about 2,000 students were still inside.My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Fixed Will work on it.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Article needs a copyedit for grammar, typos, etc.
- Will do. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Bullet list in Pakistani media should be converted to text
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why does China get its own section in reactions? Why not other nations?
- There is already a section for the US and Al-Qaeda since those are the only other "international" reactants. I could remove the section headings and leave "International Reactions". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 13 here has a date and author that need to be included, as does the date accessed. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and oter cite templates may be helpful.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
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 ><>°° 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Feel free to comment on a suggestion for the international section.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I had left more comments on this, but do not see them - sorry. I am fine with leaving China's reaction in, but what about other countries? WHat were the reactons of the UK as the former colonial power or the European Union? What about India - India and Pakistan seem to always have some reaction to the other's actions. I think it would be OK to put CHina in without a subheader or even add other nations to China and leave them without a subheader. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did leave a comment, apparently its "missing". I added the reaction of the European Union and will do so for Britain. However, I can't find reactions from officials in India. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)