Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing, be back with comments soon. Wugapodes (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
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. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * AGFing that sources are used appropriately and undue weight is not being given as I can't read through all 150 sources
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * 1) The lead seems overly cited, but they may be results of consensus and citing controversial statements. I'll look through WP:LEAD again to make sure it's okay.
 * 2) There should not be an interlanguage link in the middle of the prose like there is with "Ahmet İnsel (tr)" and "Jacob M. Landau (ger)". Either make it a WP:REDLINK or put it in a see also if the person is intimately related to the topic.
 * 3) The first paragraph of Ideology is almost entirely quotes. Which, will not an overt violation of the criteria, I think has larger problems including copyright (as one quotation is incredibly long), a lack of summary of sources, unencyclopedic voice, and neutrality. I recommend seeing the essay WP:QUOTE, particularly WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE.
 * 4) As I'm reading more, I think the article has an issue with citation overkill and may benefit from bundling citations. For example: "described by scholars and journalists as a terrorist organization.[5][24][27][28][29]", "It is made by holding up the forefinger and little finger.[39][40]", "The Grey Wolves are Pan-Turkist[2][3]", and the worst I've seen so far, "In their ideology and activities, they are hostile to virtually all non-Turkish elements within Turkey, including Kurds,[3][46][48] Alevis,[49] Armenians,[8][48] Greeks,[8][48] and Christians in general.[8][50]" which has 10 citations and repeats ref 8 and ref 48 for almost every item.
 * 5) After finishing the Ideology section, I'm not even sure I fully understand what the ideology is. I got distracted by the quotes and jumping in and out of them. The section needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the quotations in it.
 * 6) Also, the map doesn't make sense. It's not immediately apparent why the map is there or what the map is showing.
 * 7) You shouldn't pipe the link to Political violence in Turkey (1976–80) to remove the "in Turkey" part as "political violence between 1976 and 1980" is ambiguous.
 * 8) "Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.[14][21][22][58][59]" way too many citations.
 * 1) After finishing the Ideology section, I'm not even sure I fully understand what the ideology is. I got distracted by the quotes and jumping in and out of them. The section needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the quotations in it.
 * 2) Also, the map doesn't make sense. It's not immediately apparent why the map is there or what the map is showing.
 * 3) You shouldn't pipe the link to Political violence in Turkey (1976–80) to remove the "in Turkey" part as "political violence between 1976 and 1980" is ambiguous.
 * 4) "Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.[14][21][22][58][59]" way too many citations.
 * 1) You shouldn't pipe the link to Political violence in Turkey (1976–80) to remove the "in Turkey" part as "political violence between 1976 and 1980" is ambiguous.
 * 2) "Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.[14][21][22][58][59]" way too many citations.
 * 1) "Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.[14][21][22][58][59]" way too many citations.

Results
Not Listed I believe this article requires a fundamental rewrite to satisfy the criteria. The article is at least a quarter quotations. The instances of prose that are not quotations have so many citations that reading is broken up by a row of blue numbers 3 to 5 items long. Some instances have sentences fragmented by every other word being cited. I did not list every instance in my comments as it would be largely repetitive. But I think that this article is a long way from satisfying criterion one. I strongly recommend looking through WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:OVERCITE before renomination as this is a prime example of how those two issues can kill readability. Wugapodes (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)