Wikipedia:Peer review/Somalia/archive1

Somalia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Basically, I think this article has some strong points but suffers a real focus problem, particularly for a country article. Some of "the regulars" on this page disagree, they dispute that there is any problem with it. I think I have given some pretty concrete ways I think the article could improve on the talk page, but have encountered resistance on every point. I'd just like some outside opinions on the matter. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• This my my opinion the Somalia article is very well written article focusing all important and interesting facts of Somalia and that why there is no problem with it. There no need to change because its a quality article. Wikiplayer13 (talk)

• On a related note, see also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Somalia_-_Transparency_International_and_Somali_news_sites. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is this a request to look at the article beyond the points raised on the talk page about corruption in Somalia? If so, I have some long-standing concerns about the space devoted to the history of the country being out of proportion -- especially the more recent history. (Based on the precept that it is harder to write on a topic succinctly, than at length.) I'm willing to discuss how to tighten up those sections. Otherwise, I'm not about to venture an opinion on a topic I know very little about & don't have the time to inform myself well enough to discuss intelligently. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is a review on the article in general. I'm sure any input you provide will be great. TastyCakes (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Although I have no special knowledge of Somalia, I can suggest several ways to improve the article.

• At 132 kilobytes, the article is probably too long for comfort. No rule says it can't be that long, but reader fatigue becomes a significant factor at or about 100 kb. If the History re-write recommended by User:Llywrch made that part of the article more succinct, that would be good.

• The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between two images. against displacing heads, subheads, or edit buttons with images, and against placing images in such a way that they overlap two or more sections. I see examples of all three of these layout problems in the article. One possible solution is to move the images to different positions or, if that is not possible, to remove some of them to give the text some breathing room.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. Ideally it should mention each of the main text sections in some way, and it should include nothing important that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead mentions important geographic details, for example, that don't appear in the Geography section. The existing lead says nothing about climate, health, the military, culture, and many of the other sections. It is not a summary. WP:LEAD has details.

• Although the article includes many citations, significant parts of the article lack sources. For example, the "Geography and climate" section lists only one source, which seems to cover the climate chart and the temperature paragraph. What reliable sources support the claims in the other paragraphs? A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph.

• All of the metric measures, such as 637,540 square kilometers in the first sentence of the "Geography and climate" section should also be given in imperial units; i.e., 637,540 square kilometres (246,160 sq mi). I like using the {{convert}} template for these, but you can also do them by hand.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests rendering lists as straight prose when feasible. Most of the lists in this article would work fine as prose. The "Law" section is particularly list-y, and the list of four hospitals in the Health section would be better as a single sentence.

• The Manual of Style suggests merging or expanding extremely short sections or subsections. I would consider combining some of the short subsections in "Culture", for example. Music and literature could become one instead of two.

• I would not include anything in the "See also" section that is already linked in the main text. In fact, I would consider reducing the "See also" section to a single link: Index of Somalia-related articles.

• The Reference section contains many refs that are incomplete or malformed. For example, citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.

• I see a lot of overlinking. Common English words like "commerce", "merchant", "spice", "building", and "general" should not be linked. The important links lose value when so many words are linked.

These are just a few suggestions, not a complete line-by-line review by any means. Even so, I hope they are helpful. If you find them so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one in the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)