Wikipedia:Peer review/Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)/archive1

Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, in the interest of demonstrating there can be a globalised article (i.e., insurgency) with one or more national doctrines implementing it. There has been some confusion as a result of an unconventional warfare article that is quite distinct from this one.

Thanks, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch

Ruhrfisch comments: First off this article needs to follow the five pillars of WIkipedia, one of which is Neutral Point of View. As written, this seems to me to be an example of content forking. This is not to say that there could not be a very good and neutral article on this topic, but right now this ain't it. Still it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it and so here are some suggestions to make it better. These are broad as a lot of work to clean this up has to be done. I will also give examples, but usually there will be many more occurrences of the problem that need to be fixed in the article - the examples are not an exhaustive list. Here goes:

The lead needs to be completely rewritten to be a summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD A more NPOV version of the current lead could perhaps be used as an overview after the lead.
The title of the article needs to be mentioned as early as possible in the first sentence of the article - currently the US DOD does not appear until the second paragraph of the lead (and then is linked twice in two sentences - avoid overlinking).
Bold fonts are way overused in this article - see WP:MOS and read it (and not just on use of bold)
The article needs many more references - every section, every pararagraph, every quote and statistic needs a ref. Now for example whole sections such as History and World War II are unreferenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Refs that are given need to be consistent and provide more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if know, and date accessed. Use {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help.
The MOS asks that an image be put in the top right corner - the skydivers over Afghanistan is visually striking and seems like a good possible lead image.
Do not repeat the article name in headers (or its abbreviation), so "Evolution of the UW mission" could just be "Evolution of the mission"
Much of this reads like a field manual for UW - talk about the topic and how others have analyzed it, not how to do it.
Above all, please do not use this article to critique the Unconventional warfare article.

The article is generally well written and interesting, it just needs some work to more closely conform to Wikipedia's policies and guideline. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]