Wikipedia:Peer review/Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping/archive1

Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've been attempting to improve this article over the past month or so - when I first started it was in a bit of a mess, with luck I've made it less so. I feel that some parts of the article are still in a state and could do with improvement though, so I'm listing it here in order to figure out how best to improve it moving forward. I'm hoping to get general feedback on all sections the article - feedback on the following (but not limited to it) would be particularly helpful:

Organization - I've attempted to edit the article so it seems less list-like and chunky. Have I succeeded, and is there a way to reduce the list-like prose even further? Would it be feasible for me to completely remove some sections - especially thinking about what to do with the "reactions" which could be split into the rest of the text, and the "further kidnappings" at the end - could this be put into the "see also" part?
Quality of references - I haven't had time to check them all, most seem fine but I'm sure there are some unreliable ones out of the multiple ones on the article
Inclusion of content - what parts do I need to expand? Does it leave out anything major that I need to get down?
Whether it might be feasible to get this to a GA, though for now I'm most interested in getting the basics of this article sorted out.

Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ashley

Hi Pahunkat, as I've mentioned before, this subject matter is beyond my scope so my comments would be general. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them.

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations should not be used in the lead unless you are citing controversial information. I get that this entire subject is controversial, but there are too many references in the lead. Any information that is already well-sourced in the body and repeated in the lead does not require a citation. You might want to check to see if it's possible to remove some/all of them.
There are some instances of WP:OVERCITE throughout the article. See if its possible to trim the excessive citations and keep only the highly reputed ones. If you plan on using more than three citations to support a claim, then the references should be bundled.
References should be arranged in numerically throughout the article. So "[28][40][41][33]" should be written as "[28][33][40][41]".
Some references are lacking publication, date, and author parameters. Also, make sure to wikilink the publications/websites to their respective pages. I see that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, The Times, USA Today are not linked at all. Some of them like "BBC News" should not be italicised. See that the citation style is consistent throughout the article- for instance some references use The New York Times while others use New York Times. Same with The Washington Post.
Some statements are unsourced in the article.
I can see some MOS:INOROUT issues with the quotations.
All images should have ALT text.
The article might benefit from the WP:GOCE but that again is a personal suggestion.

I think that's all from me. Hope this helps. All the best, --Ashley yoursmile! 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say that I have been working on this feedback and will provide a more detailed response to it once I'm mostly done. Pahunkat (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]