Wikipedia:Peer review/Syed Ahmed Khan/archive1

Syed Ahmed Khan edit

Hi - I request the help and participation of all in making this article an FA. Rama's arrow 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the article a copyedit - it already was a well-written article with nice layout, so there wasn't really much to do. One sentence, "While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." was confusing in a way that I could not rectify. There is no subject and I couldn't figure out what should be the subject. There are red links that either should have pages or should be explained, such as his positions. In any event, I assume that the references will be added shortly because, well, there aren't any. And that ain't cool as far as FAC goes, as you are well aware! But otherwise, wonderful job! InvictaHOG 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by - Aksi_great (talk - review me)

First para in lead states "His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals, professionals, politicians.." and the third paragraph again states "His political leadership would give direction to a rising class of Muslim intellectuals and politicians..". That is almost a repetition.
Why is Birth capitalised and death is not. Death anniversary is a red link. There is no need to link it.
Early life - Highly connected seems to be wrong. Maybe well connected could be used. "Associated" could also be used. "Connected" doesn't sound nice.
Akbar Shah I is a red linnk. It is not clear who he was.
"their life" is wrong grammar - "their lives"
"Khan learnt to read the Qur'an under a female tutor" - Is female important?
First printing press in Urdu language? Where? Surely not the first in the whole world.
Where did Khan pursue medicine? If it was a well known college, then it could be linked or at least mentioned.
"In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi. The family's misfortunes intensified with the death of his brother in 1845, leaving Khan as the main bread-winner." There is no link between the sentences. The promotion isn't a family misfortune. It could read - "The family's fortunes received another setback with the death of..."
Thoughout the article there is a lot of usage of "he would be" - For example - "1867. Two years later, Khan travelled to England, where he would be awarded the Order of the Star of India" - Why not just use the simple past tense - "where he was awarded the Order". That is just my personal preference. I have notices the usage of "would do this" in all articles expanded by you. It isn't much of a big deal.
Also as usual use Indian English spellings.

That's all I had time for just now. I have not read the article from Political career onwards. Will do that later today. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further additions by - Aksi_great (talk - review me)

Criticism and legacy - "He is defended by some modern historians and Aligarh scholars as mainly anxious to secure fair representation and political rights for Muslims, otherwise firmly believing in a united India for all its different peoples. While criticized by Indian nationalists for his advocacy of British rule, which served to substantially divide Muslim political loyalties." - Shouldn't the two sentences be merged. If not then the second sentence seems to be wrong. It starts with While.. and should lead to something (While A, B - where B should be something opposite of A).
Death and legacy - Criticism and legacy - Legacy in two sections. Maybe the two sections could be merged.
A small point you could add is his impact on today's world if any.

Besides all the above minor points the article is great. The only major point is the obvious lack of references (which I am sure you already have). Tell me if you need any more help with the article. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]