Wikipedia:Peer review/2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline/archive1

2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… because I have nominated this article for FL-status which was not promoted and I would like a complete review of what needs to be done so I can renominate it again.

Thanks, – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

At this point, I would say that the biggest issue is still the lack of referencing mentioned in both the banner at the top of the page and multiple times in the FLC. Per The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) at the FLC, "I would expect to see references for each of the events in this timeline." This referencing has not happened, and so you still have many spots where opinion, facts, speculation and other material is not referenced. Other issues:

I am also wondering about comprehensiveness. Right now, everything through April 2010 deals with Greece. Was there nothing going on in the rest of Europe during 2009/1st qtr 2010?
~~No spaces in between punctuation and references.~~ Done
~~Three dead links and five dab links that need to be fixed, see this tool.~~ Done
References need cleaning up. For example, ref #89 (Greek referendum) has the author in the work field, resulting in a very odd italicization. Also, while most references use templates, some don't, resulting in a mix of styles.
Prose needs a run through. For example, "Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi said that he will resign of his office" in Nov 2011, "An international alarm over a Eurozone crisis grows." in September 2011 (plus, why did the alarm pick Sept 13 to grow?), Eurozone capitalized or not?, etc.

Overall, I think it's a good start, but I think that the referencing needs to be taken care of before another FLC is even considered. Once references are found and the potential comprehensiveness issues are addressed, the rest of the issues should be fairly easy to iron out. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for reviewing it. I know that the article is very poor citation-wise and I would like to have a review apart from the referencing problem. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that approach (reviewing apart from referencing) is that as significant referencing work is done, it is common for the article (especially prose, but also style, layout, images, etc) to change quite drastically. So, I could review for prose now, but then if you found a bunch of spots where the sources focused on X, while the article said Y, then you would need to change the article to say X, and that would make a prose review moot. So, references first, then prose. In the meantime, working on poor grammar, ref formatting and comprehensiveness would be a good first step, if you're not currently focusing on the referencing itself. Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]