Talk:British Cypriots/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I think it is a good little article about an interesting topic and just needs some filling in of a little more information to help the general reader who may not know the background, like me, understand. Below I have entered some initial comments regarding the article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * It would help to have a general overview of the history of Cyprus - just a few sentences or so.
 * Under "History" the time frame is a little confusing. When you say "during the war", do you mean WWI? But next you mention the British anexation of Cyprus in 1914. So presumable the Cypriots joined the allied forces in WWI as soldiers? For what country? This paragraph needs to be clarified, perhaps expanded a little to include a little about the background of the annexation. And relate events in chronological order.
 * Why did Cypriots migrate to the UK and why did this increase during EOKA's campaign for Cypriot independence from Britain?
 * Perhaps a small explanation about the relationship between the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus - would their motivations for immigration differ? It was the Turkish that engaged in the ethnic cleansing? Were the 10,000 Cypriots that fled Greeks?
 * In para four, you mention "the two communities tended to be geographically segregated" - this is the first you have mentioned the existence of two communities. An explanation of this should come earlier.
 * What is the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in London or the UK?
 * In the lede, you say "but the community including people of Cypriot ancestry remains sizeable". I think the lede should also contain information about the two communities
 * The lede should be just a little longer, in general.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes you have made are very good. This is a good, interesting little article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

You did a very good job. Congradulation!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written  b (MoS): Conforms with Mos
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks - my first GA! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)