| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because, the article has been cleared of cleanup tags and if any more are necessary for quality improvement towards FA-level, please feel free to share in this first PR.
Thanks, Kornkaobat (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the article, there are a few places where the prose and text could use tightening up. Many areas are clearly unsourced, even if they have not been tagged, and other areas may need their sources checked. For prose there are areas with a lot of choppiness and short disconnected sentences. Some of this may be related to a common occurence which is additions that are not integrated with existing text. The article is approaching 13,000 words and has 43 content sections/subsections. Partially this is the History section, a common locus for these issues, which currently has over 3000 words and gets choppier towards more recent times. Another common area of issue is the Culture section, where subsections get larger and become small lists while the overarching synthesis information is not covered. This article does better than some, having an overarching section with some relevant information. It could be improved with more sources. Regarding subsections, there are a few list issues and Sports stands out as being mostly disconnected points. Among the most clear areas of missing sourcing, Geography and Politics both open with unsourced paragraphs. The lead has a few sources only used there, which suggests it may be slightly out of line with the body. Source quality may need a look as well, there is one twitter source, a few Britannica sources, and quite a few primary/government sources that aren't integrated within context from secondary sources. Best, CMD (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed review, I’ll try to improve on sourcing and coherence points aforementioned with other editors. Kornkaobat (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)