Wikipedia:Peer review/Iraqi Partisan movement, 1979–1988/archive1

Iraqi Partisan movement, 1979–1988

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is quite good myself, covering an interesting subject, having various good references and several free images. Would like to get feedback on the prose and structure, though. Lead needs to be beefed up, also. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first one at this so Im not sure what exactly to say, but off the bat:

Lead as you say needs to summarise thecontent of the page.
Think the section titles could be altered as in the one about the communist party which is too long.
Is there just the one event that happened? (ie- just the massacre) Is there anymore ground to cover?
Perhaps "veterans society" can be changed to "Legacy" or something of the sort and then expanded.
Some related links for a "see also"/"further reading" would enhance this i think. PJAK??

Otherwise it seems good and referenced well. Albeit a little short and of course an orphan. I would suggest putting a fact at DYK to get its some publicity and either "see also" it on other pages on merge into the content of other pages like the Iraqi Comm. Party/PUK, KDR, etc. Hope this helps, at least somewhat ;)(Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010

(UTC));

Brianboulton comments

Although the article shows promise, at around 730 words it looks far too short to give adequate coverage of the subject. For example, what military activities did Al-Ansar engage in before the Pasht Ashan affair in May 1983? We are told that it was operational from April 1979, and "the partisan forces operated throughout the Kurdish provinces of Iraq" but are given no details of any missions.
Later, we read that "In June 1987 the movement suffered another severe set-back, as over 150 ansar fighters were killed." but are given no further details.
The article draws on a very limited range of sources. Also, the links to the two Arabic sources do not appear to be working
None of the images have sufficient details (publication, authorship) to establish that they are in the public domain in the USA.
One disambiguation link needs fixing.

With appropriate further development this could become a decnt article, but a lot more work needs to be done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]