Wikipedia:Peer review/Hypothetical partition of Belgium/archive1

Partition of Belgium edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach featured status. Since I started the article a couple of months ago, it has been expanded by a lot of people and become a topic of importance, owing to the current political crisis in Belgium. I think it will be particularly instructive to any reader to have a featured article available on Wikipedia on this topic.

Thanks,

K a r n a (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review - The article looks good, but there's still some major problems. The article's size looks okay, but needs waaay more citations, especially if there's going to be expansion. The other problem I came across was the prose; several sentences are very "clunky" and/or confusing. I'd suggest getting a copyeditor to go through the article and rewrite it. Several sentences are also too short and give a stop-start feeling to the article and the opening needs to be reworked significantly from its current state. Towards the centre of the article, it gets a bit listy. FAC goers don't really like bullet point lists, so turn it into workable prose. Finally, it's generally not a great idea to pictures before the text (IE, the first two pictures of the article are to the left). It might be wise to shuffle them around. I'd be glad to help, but I know practically nothing about the subject and as you may or may not know, I have another article which I've been prepping with another editor for a couple of months now, so I'll limit myself to commenting on the article rather than actually editing it. Drop me a note about my comments or if you've fixed any and I'll pop aroudn and see if anything else needs doing. The article's on the right track, but get out many more books and references, add their information and especially cite the article's text - 80-90% cited is reasonable, but I strive to find citations for 100% of the article. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will inform you as soon as I've finished implementing your advice. I think this article will expand a little bit more, as I'm a novice on Belgian history and politics, and it may take a while before I can satisfy the requirement of the article being comprehensive to the topic. Thank you for responding so quickly, K a r n a (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very precise and topical article. While I have only given it a cursory look. my interest is piqued and I will return for a more in depth look. At first I thought the footnote section was a bit long and wordy but, realizing the linguistic dynamic of the region involved, it soon became exceptable. In fact, when I considered the potential readers the length made sense. Good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]