Talk:Cyprus/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I will look over the article over the next few days and give an initial impression.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am struck that there are a number of sections which are uncited - indeed there are several "uncited" tags on the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've only looked back a few edits and I note that there have been a number of reverts. Most of the reverts are of IP vandalism, so I will semi-protect the article, and then consider if the other reverts amount to significant edit warring.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead section needs to be a summary of the article. See WP:Lead. There should be an overview of the history of Cyprus in both the lead and the introduction to the history section.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Images are OK for GA criteria, though many of them need information to be completed. Also, consideration needs to be given to the amount and usefulness of some of the images - the transportation section in particular is rather cluttered - and we have six maps of the island.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To bring an article about a country to GA status is quite difficult as there is so much to cover. In the case of Cyprus the recent political situation makes that task even harder. I should imagine that there has been some difficulty in covering that aspect because of the differences of opinion between Greek and Turkish Cypriots - and that is probably why there is not a section devoted to the issue rather than information being scattered in the history and government sections.

In addition tourism is not adequately covered, nor is there adequate discussion of notable sites such as Kourion.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a number of issues with this article, and it would be very difficult to address them all in a short space of time. I am stopping my assessment and I will contact the nominator to discuss the matter. The options are to put this on hold to see if progress can be quickly made to address the concerns, or to close this review and let the article build for a while before applying again for GA status.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting on hold allow time for nominator (or other interested party) to respond to my concerns. If there is no response by the start of November I will close this review as a fail.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started working on the article. My plan is to start with the history section and work my way down, leaving the lead for last.  Any comments/suggestions would be tremendously appreciated.  Best, --Athenean (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've spoken with the nominator who agreed that the current review should be closed to allow editors more time to deal with the issues - User_talk:Vizjim. However I will keep the review going if I see more positive work on the article, such as that done by Athenean. I'll make time later to finish the assessment.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give a hand too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am closing this as a fail. I think there are too many issues to resolve in a short space of time, and there needs to be an agreement on the terminology of the location that uses reliable sources (other encyclopedias say "an island in the eastern Mediterranean). While discussions like this: Talk:Cyprus are happening it indicates it is too soon for the article to be reviewed. I'd be quite willing to review this when it has been suitably sourced, the lead has been written to follow WP:Lead, and there is a general agreement as to how the article should be presented and structured. The question of where etymology information belongs in Wikipedia articles is under discussion - however, the guidelines do currently suggest that the information is placed in the history section. It is usually wise to follow guidelines when going for a GA status.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A clearer reference corroborating the location terminology has since been added.  That should settle the matter.  Nonetheless, while the article is not up to GA standard yet, to use the location issue as the dominating rationale to fail the nomination (by gauging how much of the above comment is devoted to it) is preposterous. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)