Talk:Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this one. I mainly focus on copyediting issues but will also look over the refs too. Should complete this within a day or two. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 19:18, 18 February 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

 * The lead is too short and does not summarise the article. To comply per WP:LEAD and meet the GA criteria it should act as a "mini article" by summarising every section. At present it is only two sentences long so I would strongly recommend expanding it to at least three paragraphs (for an article this comprehensive and large).
 * Furthermore, can something be bolded in the lead?


 * "Native inhabitants of these lands were frequently forced out" - which lands? Is this referring to Crimea?
 * Some facts in the Crimea section are unsourced. Sentences include "44.6% were Muslim" and "This association continued into the Soviet period" do not have citations
 * Shouldn't the Crimea section be renamed to History or something similar to a specific period? The content in it is more or less a brief history of Russian influence in Crimea
 * "42.2% of the population of the Crimean ASSR" - instances like these needs to be explained at their first mention. For example "Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" should be reworded to Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) in order for the reader to understand what they mean
 * "made-up" - why is there a hyphen in made-up?
 * "For the first time in history, ethnic Russians comprised the majority of the population of Crimea" - it ins't clear when this occured
 * There are three Demographics sections in this article. Usually there would be only one level two header in any article, but all of them here mean different things. Would it make it clearer to reorganise it into one larger section?
 * "In 1858, the population of the region was 700,767. By 1897, it had reached 1,453,109" - this needs a citation
 * "According the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain" - should be United Kingdom or at least Britain if it's in the 20th century
 * "only the Roma were reported as not using Russian in daily life, citing Romani instead" - unsourced
 * The second paragraph of the Odessa Oblast section sounds a lot like demographics
 * Some sentences in the Odessa Oblast section also remain unsourced

Close - not listed
I'm so sorry to do this, seeing as it had taken a long time for this to be reviewed, but in its current standing the article does not meet the GA criteria and there would also be too much work to be done for this current GAN. Overall the lead does not summairse (a requirement for GA) and also some of the prose could do with a copy edit in order for it to flow better. There are also some statements that do not have a source. It was an interesting read, and it gave me an insight on this as I feel like Russia are being antagonised by the world following this crisis. Anyway, please re-nominate once they're all done, I'll be happy to take it again. Regards ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)