Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Given the size of the article, I should have this one up in a couple of days if that's ok ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments
Thank you for taking the time Jaguar for reviewing the article. It is very much appreciated.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * Citations are generally discouraged from the lead unless it is citing controversial information. I think that "Although Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty will not come into force until May 2015, provided it has been ratified,[15][16][17][18]" - is not really controversial (I could be wrong), so why four citations?


 * Maybe the third paragraph could be switched with the second, as articles generally have the second paragraphs in the lead talking about the history and the third [last] miscellaneous?

Body

 * "The idea was quickly seen as a way to bolster trade" - bolster trade with who? Western nations or Eurasian?
 * The goal is to boost trade in general: to increase mutual trade between members of the union and increase trade with Europe and Asia (the EEU also wants be a transit hub for countries of both continents)—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in the Founding Treaties (1990s) subsection should contain at least one source


 * Some paragraphs in the Geography section are unsourced. Please make sure at least every paragraph is sourced in order for this to meet the criteria


 * Some flow issues in the Enlargement section. The opening "Tajikistan is interested in joining" should be merged with another paragraph


 * Budget subsection is very short, consider expanding or merging it?


 * Would the European Union be considered 'competition' to the EEU? A mention of "Tensions between the EEU and the European Union (EU) occurred as both have sought to deepen their ties with several former Soviet republics" gives us an idea that there could be some competition
 * There's some sort of a competition yes, for countries like Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. Both unions have tried to sign agreements with those countries for them to pursue integration. Russia wants those countries to remain in its sphere of influence. The EU wants them to pursue european integration. It could probably described as a "tug of war"—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kazakhstan ranks favorably in terms of miles of road per inhabitant as other developed countries in the world have much less roadway per inhabitant" - big claim! This needs to be sourced?


 * Second paragraph in the Existing integration projects is unsourced

WP:ENGVAR

 * Does this article use American English or British English? In some cases there are words such as "modernise" and different spelling variations such as "unrecognized" etc

On hold
Overall a comprehensive article, it is broad and well referenced, despite the problems it has now it has a fighting chance of passing the GAN. The major concerns here are the dead references that need to be replaced and some prose/lead issues too. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and if they are all addressed we'll take another look. Thanks ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jaguar! I have updated and corrected the article in line with your comments. I hope it fits your expectations adequately.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Sorry for not seeing this as I have been away for a while - thanks for addressing them. After reading through the article again extensively I am happy to say that this article has improved and meets the GA criteria. It passes 1a. of the criteria (well written) and after your improvements, the references should also pass. Anyway, I could go on for a bit, but let's promote this ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)