Talk:Abdurauf Fitrat/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this in the coming days. However before I start, I wanted to mention that I just read Making Uzbekistan: Nation, Empire, and Revolution in the Early USSR by Adeeb Khalid, and he discusses Fitrat considerably throughout the book (Khalid even notes Fitrat comes up in every chapter). However the book is not mentioned here as a source, when it probably should be considered. I also believe Khalid has written about Fitrat in other places (I haven't done a full look, but his citations in Making Uzbekistan suggest this). That all said, I would strongly encourage trying to get a copy of Khalid's book and incorporating some of what he wrote. I can hold off on a full review if you'd like, but feel that the article would lack comprehensiveness to go without. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am still going through some of the additional sources which I could not stop stumbling upon during the last two months. I am quite sure that at the end of this month, I'll be ready. Thanks for asking :) → «« Man77 »» 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And to confirm, I've been watching and been kept updated on this, and am happy to wait for the improvements before reviewing. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to do this, but due to some changing situations outside here, I'm going to have to back out from reviewing, as I won't be in a position to do so in the near future. I appreciate your efforts here, and definitely encourage you to re-nominate once ready. I'm sure someone will give it the attention it deserves. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If anybody wants to know: I think I'm ready with the reworking of the article I wanted to do. → «« Man77 »» 19:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be taking over the GAN from here. I apologize for the delay but hopefully, we can get this review underway ASAP. Due to school/work obligations, I will begin with a template and add in my notes as I go, I plan to get all my notes in within the next day or so and I will adjust the review time frame accordingly. If you have any questions feel free to Ping me or go to my talk page. Etriusus (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks. Taking care of almost 200 references again will take some time, but I will do what needs to be done. Best regards, → «« Man77 »» 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am most of the way done with my review and I have placed the page on hold. I've noticed a number of grammatical errors and citation issues that need to be addressed before passing this page on to GA status. If you think that these issues can be resolved within 7 days, I will gladly keep the review open. If you think it'll take more time, then I would recommend WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or WP:PR.


 * Hi, I think that I'll be able to resolve most of the things you mentioned within a couple of days. However, what exactly do you mean with "Add external links to citations"? Some of the sources I cite are books or some other kind of printed text, some do not even have an ISBN (because of their age or origin). I randomly compared this article with the featured The Raft of the Medusa, whose citation style is also not 100 % consistent (short and full citations, with and without external links), and similar to what my intentions were. I am ready to check the citations in the article, but I am not sure what you really expect. → «« Man77 »» 10:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I meant that there was some inconsistency with some web sources having external links and others not. Per Urve's message, this is not an issue for GAN nomination so I'll go ahead and check this off. Etriusus (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A note about myself, I tend to correct grammatical errors unless I either can't understand the sentence meaning or the errors to too numerous. Etriusus (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates for my own convenience:

✅

1. It is reasonable well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 * The sentence According to reports, Fitrat took part in establishing these societies and thanks to a grant given by the secret "society for the education of the children" (Tarbiyayi atfol) which was financed by merchants Fitrat himself was able to go to Istanbul in spring of 1910 shortly after the very first group. needs rewriting, its a run on-sentence and contains multiple grammatical errors, some of which I've already fixed. Etriusus (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please rewrite Back then, Istanbul was governed by the Young Turks, which constitutes historical circumstances which would go on to have essential influence on Fitrat and on the activities and the general social surroundings of the Bukharan students in Istanbul.. This sentence is hard to follow, especially the phrasing "back then". Etriusus (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article uses the word "probably" multiple times. This needs to be changed as it is not encyclopedic wording. Etriusus (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done: I've rephrased these sentences or at least indicated that the probability is not my interpretation but taken from the source. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After reaching half way through section 2.2, I have noticed a large number of grammatical errors and issues on clarification. I have fixed some of these but the whole article needs to be proofread again. Etriusus (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In opposition to and in exile from the Bukharan emir he sided with the communists. Please specify what communist group this was. Etriusus (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * ✅ Lead shouldn't have citations per WP:CITELEAD. The lead is a brief overview of the content in the article; it should not provide new information. Please remove these citations. Etriusus (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * The sourcing needs serious work. The rule around GAs is that they must maintain a consistent citation style. Some of the citations are templated, others are bare links, and multiple lack external links all together. I personally don't care what citation style is used, but it needs to be consistent. See CITESTYLE. Etriusus (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and, for clarity, per the good article criteria, specifically footnote 4, consistent citation styles are not required for promotion, although they should have enough information to allow for verification. I didn't see any bare links in a quick look - if there are any, those should have some information other than the link, though, in case the link dies, to ensure the references remain verifiable for the information. Urve (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * All citations look to be from reliable sources. Etriusus (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It contained no original research;
 * ✅ The section Works "(selection)" is uncited, either add a citation or remove. Etriusus (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * Earwig isn't picking up anything. Any quotes that were detected are properly attributed and cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * The coverage on this topic is excellent. Incredibly detailed but not overly so. Etriusus (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * The covered content is very well done, this is where the article really shines. Etriusus (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ One point of order, the article seems to occasionally focus in on possibilities and uncertainties. While it is good to make note that there are unknown aspects of a person, drawing too much attention to them can be distracting and harm the overall article quality. Etriusus (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

4. It has a neutral point of view
 * Is the word choice of well-travelled, well-read in section 2.1 necessary? If there is a specific reason for this term, please state it, otherwise it needs to be removed per: WP:PUFFERY Etriusus (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A full review of the article shows some puffery within the text, terms like "almost impossible" should either be attributed or reworded. Etriusus (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Page is stable, no ongoing edit wars. Etriusus (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * ✅ The image "Fitrat Buxoro 1908" has its sourcing placed in the description tab, and for its sourcing, it only lists "scan". Please fix this. Etriusus (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done: I have removed it. I have no idea where the image was taken from by the uploader, honestly. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * ✅ Remove the word "maybe" from The Lazarev Institute caption. The date for this image is just "19th century" but the caption says 1923. If it's 1923, then it's the 20th century. Additionally, an exact year is needed in the publication tab (especially if its in the 1900s), otherwise, I cannot verify if it is Fair Use/Public Domain. Etriusus (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done: I have replaced it by another historical image with better sourcing. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The "Decision of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union" image is dated 1938 in the caption but the commons has a publication date of 2016. The date within the commons and the caption date should be consistent. Etriusus (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done: I have changed the date in the description at Commons. → «« Man77 »» 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Intial Impressions: There is a good amount of work that is still needed. I don't know if these issues can be resolved within a week's time. I will extend the review window by a day due to the delay on getting my full review out. If you have any questions, concerns, or justifications for why something should remain as is, please feel free to Ping me. Etriusus (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you made a large number of edits, many of which are very well executed. I am going to go through and clean up some of the grammar on this page but I would like you to also go through and do some cleanup as well. There is still an issue of grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and sentences that need clarification. (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC).


 * After going through the introductory paragraph, I am still finding a large number of grammatical/clarification issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdurauf_Fitrat&oldid=1034633621Etriusus This is my edit of just the intro. I personally think that Copy Editing or Peer Review may be necessary for this article. Please let me know if you think that a grammatical retooling of this page is possible in a 4-5 day timeframe. Etriusus (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I will certainly be able to try :-) English is not my first language and even though my English is quite alright, it is not going to be significantly better by, let's say, Sunday. I, however, tend to write long and nested sentences regardless of the language I use. → «« Man77 »» 20:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that case I would recommend taking the article to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or WP:PR. The content of the article is excellent, even the changes you've made in the last week have made good progress in pushing this article to GA status. GA criteria 2,3,5, and 6 seem to be in order and ready to go. Unfortunately, the grammatical issues are still numerous, even with my work to clean up the intro and first two sections. In any case, have a reviewer take a look at this article and then come back for reassessment. If you have any further questions, I'll have this page watchlisted for a few days still or you can reach out to me via my talk page. Etriusus (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I'll leave the review on hold for a few extra days (until the beginning of Sunday) in the event that the article's issues are resolved. Etriusus (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll need another handful of days to resolve the linguistic issues that I can spot myself. I am happy to ask for help after my work is done. Thanks for the links.
 * For the reassessment you mentioned: Should I notify you or is there anything else you'd like me to know? As I have mentioned already, I'm not familiar with many procedures in English Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. → «« Man77 »» 18:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Once all your edits are complete, just put the Good Article Nomination tag back on the Talk page. You'll need to remove the FGAN tag I put up. It's just repeating the same process as last time. In all likelihood, you will receive a new reviewer but if you want me to review the updated version, just ping me. I don't know how the German Wikipedia works, but the review window here is customarily 7 days in length. If you want any help with grammatical edits or renominating the article (when the time comes), please let me know and I can help. I look forward to seeing the final product. Etriusus (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Important correction: Man77, when you renominate the article at some point in the future, please do not remove the FailedGA template as Etriusus suggested; the article history needs to be retained, including past GA reviews of any kind. Thank you, and best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Recommendations

This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above.
 * 1) Add external links to citations.
 * 2) Standardize the citation style.
 * 3) Remove Puffery
 * 4) Remove citations in the lead section ✅
 * 5) Proofread for Grammar
 * 6) Fix indicated sentences
 * 7) Proofread for clarity
 * 8) Fix Lazarev Institute caption/date ✅
 * 9) Fix Decision of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union ✅
 * 10) Fix Fitrat Buxoro 1908 ✅