Wikipedia:Peer review/Portuguese Communist Party/archive2
(1st peer review)
The article has been identified as a good article, however it has failed the FA nominations. I want to know what it lacks. Perhaps a better grammar, thing that I am unable to give due to not being a native speaker. That has been the major objection. Please make suggestions, I would thank you very much for your help. Afonso Silva 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's introductory paragraphs needs a lot of TLC, including some dates, reorganization and a few phrases that explain terms. I'd also mention the PIDE in conjunction with the 'repression' of the party in the '33-74 (I infer) timeframe, but also ommisions like the name of the Estado Novo regime lead to a sense of weak article. (i.e. Strong Intro implies strong article. This one is not strong. It needs a lot more text to glue the buzz words and titles into something that can serve as a synopsis of the whole. This bareboned effort is no where even close to accomplishing that.)
- I'd guess the current placement of the Principles and internal organization section means that 'most of the article' never gets read! As is, the article probably looses the interest of most any reader in the 'Principles Section', which I'd recommend as a sub-page and both subsections as something to be moved much lower in the article. Idealistic lists like that make dry reading no matter where you put them, so I'd go with the sub-page, but move it's organization subsection as the main prose (organizing and anchoring the sub-page) to very late in the article (5th or 6th section).
- Bringing an example or two of the 'repressions' the party endured plus a little about it's resurgence in '74-75 into the article top would probably be advisible to generate interest to continue reading further to most readers, including some mention of it's current prominence or lack thereof.
- Inasmuch as the "Authoritarian" (That word should be used appropriately in the introduction) repressing regime was one of the last European authoratarian governments, and that the revolution in '74 was virtually bloodless(!), I'd suggest you work those in early, almost certainly, into the introduction as well as other such 'hook' (sympathy garnering) factoids, such as the fact that the party champions universal education of the working class which the regime opposed, etc.
- All that will take a lot of effort to remain NPOV, but as is, there is no 'momentum' to help the reader to want to read on in a dry topic (No 'Narrative SNAP')... something hard to accomplish in any long writing, but I believe necessary for FA status.
- I can't venture an opinion whether the primarily English speaking readers (of Wiki) personal beliefs (and consequent cultural bias away from anything socialist or communist) would affect it's chances, but you might want to bear that intangible reality in mind if additional work fails to bear fruit. The connotations of either of those two words here in America are rarely if ever posative. Well, excepting perhaps Ted Kennedy. ~:)
Good Luck, but good work! FrankB 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Currently, the history section takes up 24kb of the article's 54 kb total size, while the main History of the Portuguese Communist Party is 30 kb. Condense this section in line with Wikipedia:Summary Style. --maclean25 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with some of FrankB's suggestions, as well as the suggestion made by Maclean25. Here are my suggestions:
- I would put the "principles and and internal organization" section after the history section, or, as Fabartus suggests, even later in the article.
- See if you can shorten the introductory paragraphs.
- I would eliminate the tables in the electoral results section. Instead, I would replace them with short verbal summaries of the results and of long-term trends (e.g., the PCP seems to be enjoying less electoral success in the last few elections). You could put the electoral results section in a separate article (titled something like "Electoral results of the Portuguese Communist Party").
- I agree with Maclean25 that the history section should be shortened.
Best of luck to you. – Hydriotaphia 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)