This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TastyCakes (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 13 July 2010 (→Somalia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:21, 13 July 2010 by TastyCakes (talk | contribs) (→Somalia)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Somalia
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because… Basically, I think this article has some strong points but suffers a real focus problem, particularly for a country article. Some of "the regulars" on this page disagree, they dispute that there is any problem with it. I think I have given some pretty concrete ways I think the article could improve on the talk page, but have encountered resistance on every point. I'd just like some outside opinions on the matter. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- This my my opinion the Somalia article is very well written article focusing all important and interesting facts of Somalia and that why there is no problem with it. There no need to change because its a quality article. Wikiplayer13 (talk)
- On a related note, see also: WP:RS/N#Somalia - Transparency International and Somali news sites. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is this a request to look at the article beyond the points raised on the talk page about corruption in Somalia? If so, I have some long-standing concerns about the space devoted to the history of the country being out of proportion -- especially the more recent history. (Based on the precept that it is harder to write on a topic succinctly, than at length.) I'm willing to discuss how to tighten up those sections. Otherwise, I'm not about to venture an opinion on a topic I know very little about & don't have the time to inform myself well enough to discuss intelligently. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, this is a review on the article in general. I'm sure any input you provide will be great. TastyCakes (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)