Talk:Karsakpay inscription/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this.

Summary

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
The original image has been nominated for deletion from WikiCommons because of copyright issues. I have uploaded another image (this one is OK to use) - File:The Karsakpay inscription.jpg, and replaced the original. If you want the orignal one back, I think it’s possible, let me know and I’ll help you.
 * The alternative name should also appear somewhere in the main text of the article. ❌
 * The word stony is redundant and so should be edited out.
 * Unlink Kazakhstan (MOS:OL).
 * Who was Timur?
 * Link Betpak-Dala.
 * The Zafarnama is a book, and so it should be in italics.
 * ...presents the testimony about… - needs to be written in more understandable English.
 * ...of the then Leningrad… - should read ‘...in Leningrad…’.
 * Consider reducing ... still kept today. - to ‘...today.’.
 * I would rename the title 'Context' to ‘Description’, and the title 'Complete texts' to 'Texts'.
 * The title 'Complete texts should be changed to a ‘level 2’ (i.e. ==Text== ).
 * 'Chagatai transliteration’, ‘Translation’ and ‘Chagatai transliteration’ should not be in bold letters (MOS:NOBOLD).
 * The non-English texts should both be in italics (see MOS:NOITALQUOTE).
 * I would unlink the four linked words in the English translation, it’s not generally advised to link with quotations.

More comments to follow.


 * Ref 2 (Ponomarev) provides measurements, which imo should be included.
 * Ref 3 (Today Group Ltd) says that “The text was first researched and published by N N Poppe in 1940. Then A N Ponomarev, Zeki Velidi Togan, Hasan Eren, A P Grigoryev, N N Telitsyn, O B Frolova, N.Bazilhan investigated.” This should be added in some form.
 * Ref 4 (Allworth) mentions that the rock was moved to St Petersburg in 1936, not that it was found that year.
 * Also from Ref 4, Allworth states that the inscription was “carved into the stony Ulu Tagh mountainside”, i.e. it was not a loose rock found on the ground. The article doesn't mention this.
 * The pages for Ref 4 should read 215–216, not 215.
 * Ref 8 (Brummell) mentions on p. 203 that a copy of the inscription exists—details of this would be useful to mention in the article.

On hold
I'm placing the article on hold for a week until 10 October 16 October, to allow time for all the comments to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Helped out with the refs (it doesn't affect the text in the main article, so OK for me to do it myself instead of making the nominator do it). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment:, I tried to complete most of them. Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)