Wikipedia:Peer review/Brunei/archive1
Brunei[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need suggestions for improving the article to FA status.
Thanks, Hallows AG 06:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Spinningspark
- Images should have alt text
- Checklinks is showing numerous deadlinks and servers down. Blogspot.com is not usually an acceptable reference.
- I would recommend archiving online references with WebCite to protect against linkrot.
- Infobox
- The map could use an inset or a second map on a larger scale. The country is small and it is difficult to make out.
- The "Legend" link does not make sense. It links to an entirely different map with a different colour scheme so is not helpful in interpreting the displayed map.
- The stated official language does not agree with the main body text.
- There should be a reference for the land area, and any other facts, if they are not repeated in the main text.
- Lede
- You need to review the lede for compliance with WP:LEAD. Does it truly reflect the content of the article?
- island and state are overlinking. Also dubious is constitution.
- "...and in fact it is separated into two parts by Limbang, which is part of Sarawak." The "in fact" is superfluous, suggest "...and is separated into two parts by the Sarawak district of Limbang."
- "...is around 401,890 (July 2011)." This is a rather exact number. Either remove "around" or round off the number. Suggest "...was 401,890 in July 2011."
- "thalassocracy". This is an odd place to introduce this term. It would be better in the previous sentence using a construction like "...creating a thalassocracy". Might be better still to move it out of lede into the body of the article where it can be better explained. It is not really essential to the lede. It also probably should have a reference to verify that it can be so described.
- "...was visited by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 and fought the Castille War in 1578 against Spain". Who fought the war, Magellan or Brunei?
- "wartime occupation". This needs to explicitly state WWII occupation by the Japanese. There have been many wars since and younger readers may not make the connection so easily.
- "Developed Country" should probably not be capitalised (its article is not)
- Etymology
- The second paragraph needs a reference
- FN.13 does not say "possibly" or any other kind of conditional clause. If there is doublt on this etymology, a source saying so is required.
- References
- Numerous sources are not fully, or properly cited. At minimum, author, title, page(s), publisher and date are required. To achieve FA, a consistent citation style must be used throughout.
- Many footnotes are repeats of the same source. You might want to consider moving the full citation to the bibliography and use [{WP:SFN|shortened citations]] in the article body
- Numerous footnotes have ISBNs that do not appear on any of the well known databases such as WorldCat, including FNs 14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47. While this does not entirely rule them out, it leads to a suspicion that they might not be reliable (self-published, COI concerns etc). Are you sure all the ISBNs are accurate; some of them, eg FN.31, return an invalid number message.
- FN.13 describes itself as a blog. These are usually not acceptable unless written by a recognised authority in the field. The page seems to be based on a newspaper article. The Brunei Times article should be cited directly instead if possible.
Given the number of problematic references, I am going to stop the review here. Fixing the referencing is likely to substantially affect the article content so I suggest you work on the refs first then request another peer review. Good book references should not be hard to find. A gbooks search returned numerous hits. The Saunders book (second on the list for me) looks particularly promising for history.