Talk:Place name changes in Turkey/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In accordance with lead sections (see left), ideally all it should consist of is a set of summaries of longer or less-joined up statements made elsewhere. Therefore kindly repeat by interweaving into prose the statements into the existing sections, keeping all the references, and thereby free the lead from citations.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	75 sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements. There are a couple of easily verifiable diagrams which simply summarises other facts so are not original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to other articles on comparable etymology, this article is very well developed, even to the extent of having sourced data arranged by 4 languages of original names which rightly sets those places out in a verifiable, concise and logical way and prevents the danger of editors indulging in politically charged view's about minor changes being notable or about the neutrality of other means of presenting the data, such as by period of governing party.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article has only one shortcoming in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria and 5 links are to redirects which ideally should be recoded, and 1 is to a "dodgy server" at Hemshin.org which may need to be rewritten as it is to a page of a book google books I believe would be fine. I replaced the Hemshin.org link and another redirect. But I found this weird...most of these websites aren't redirects. They all point to the original website.

Three places need disambiguation in their link coding:

Kocaeli
Hatay
Sakarya - DONE.

Please click on them insert their full link characters, a pipe sign and the shortened versions after the pipe. - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly write ~~~ at end of future edits (bold above). Without the special coding I have used it will turn into your name! - Adam37 Talk 21:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly also now address the lead, in due course, I appreciate after all of your and others' devoted editing this article you may well have fatigue. Also a 'cooling off period' on such a political article is recommended of a week so as to never offend WP:Controversy. - Adam37 Talk 21:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear the article needs to have its references moved down from the lead to the rest of the article.- Adam37 Talk 18:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

There doesn't appear to have been any action on the review in over a month, and no action on the article for over 10 days before then. If the article still doesn't meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, a requirement for GA listing, perhaps it is time to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]