Talk:People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I have an interest in the history of the far left, and quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia articles on the subject, so I'd be interested in giving this a review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Unfortunately, problems litter the prose throughout this page. Examples of problematic wording include "The Soviet Union set in Moscow...", and "On the 1 January 1965 Taraki with Babrak Karmal established..." In other instances, the wording is acceptable for GA purposes, but could still be edited for clarity; for instance "The PDPA was known in Afghan society at that time as having strong ties with the Soviet Union..." could be simplified as "The PDPA were known for their strong ties to the Soviet Union..." The prose could have done with a thorough peer review from a fluent English speaker before being brought to GA.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section, though generally suitable, fails on several points; for instance, the opening sentence announces when the party was formed, but not when it was dissolved. It also focuses to a great deal on the historical situation in Afghanistan at the time in which the party existed, to the detriment of discussing the party's policies and specific ideological affiliation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Certain sentences, such as "Most of the government's new policies clashed directly with the traditional Afghan understanding of Islam, making religion one of the only forces capable of unifying the tribally and ethnically divided population against the unpopular new government, and ushering in the advent of Islamist participation in Afghan politics", are completely unreferenced. Most of the references do not follow the guide to layout, being incorrectly formatted and lacking page numbers.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It fails to discuss the structure of the party, or go into detail regarding such issues as its dissolution.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are a few words, such as "excessive" and "an ill-conceived land reform", which betray a POV bias on behalf of the author.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are of some relevence.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some good work has gone on here, and the editors responsible deserve to be congratulated, but I'm afraid to say that this isn't up to GA quality yet, due to the multiple reasons outlined above. Still, good luck with it! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)