Talk:Sumgait pogrom/GA1

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

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this next. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Overview
The entire article is well referenced to reliable sources. These sources are fully cited to the correct way as should be according to WP:FNNR. The images are appropriate to the article in their correct sections. The content is well written and explained well. The article is very well presented altogether with good grammar and spelling.

Infobox
The infobox is very good. It contains the key information. It is well referenced correctly. The image featured is a good encyclopedic image for the article's infobox. It contains a suitable caption.
 * Good Infobox
 * Good Image

Lead Paragraph
The entire lead section is well written with good grammar and spelling. This explains the main points quite quickly as is what the lead is suppose to do. The sections points are referenced to reliable sources and avoiding self research. The references are cited correctly. This is an excellent lead section, it entices the reader for more detail, as the main points are summarized. The section is not too big. Very well referenced.
 * Well Written
 * Well explained
 * Well Referenced
 * Overall

Background
The section is well written. Contains detailed information in dept that is explained well and easy to read All the information is backed up by a reference from a reliable source. All references are fully sited. The images featured are very good as they explain the text featured. The map and diagram are both used for encyclopedic use. This is a very good section in the article, very good images, linked to other articles for more information, well referenced and written.
 * Well Written
 * Well Referenced
 * Good Images
 * Overall

Pogroms
As per rest of the article this is still very well written, whilst using a neutral point of view in the text. Very good referencing in this article throught. Referenced to reliable sources correctly obliging the Manual of Style WP:FNNR. The image is appropriate to the information in the section, containing a caption explaining the image. This is another well done section, it is referenced very well, a good image, presented very well containing the quote box rather than using the quote marks (“.....”). The quote box stands out better to the reader, only should be used for bigger quotes / statements as is in the article. The paragraphs are a good size each making it more engaging for the reader. Instead of having a big chunk of text. It makes it easier to view and find the info you are looking for.
 * Well Written
 * Well Referenced
 * Good Image
 * Overall

Government Reaction
This section is well written as is the whole article. The sections content is explained well. The content is presented well, especially the quote box being present.br The section is fully cited and referenced. Everything is fine here, there is nothing wrong with this section. It is well written, referenced, explained and presented.
 * Well Written
 * Well Explained
 * Well Presented
 * Well Referenced
 * Overall

Aftermath
Good Section

Criminal Proceedings
Good section everything fine

Rest of Article
Well Referenced Well Written Everything Fine

Overall Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A.Yes this article is very well written.
 * B. The layout is correct.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * AYes the whole article is very well referenced, and correctly referenced.
 * B. All references are to reliable sources.
 * C. Contains no original research.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Yes. It addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * B.Yes all information is valid to the article.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Yes article is not biased it contains neutral point of view
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * Yes article is stable
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * Yes article is stable
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * This is an excellent article very well done to all the frequent contributors here, keeping this article in control very good article definitely approves to be a good article. Good job. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to JohnGormleyJG: it is an extremely rare article that has nothing wrong with it: no typos, no grammatical flubs, no other issues. This article was not immune, and these issues should be fixed before the GA is awarded. For example, the second sentence in the Radio broadcast subsection of the Background section is not only a run-on, with more commas than necessary, but the final period is missing. I also see close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the final sentence of Asseessments and consequences, even to the structure of the original, which is quite concerning since the review doesn't mention copyvio/close paraphrasing being checked. I must also confess that your closing comment worries me: "keeping this article in control very good article definitely approves to be a good article" is not even comprehensible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not come across any typos of such when I read this? Is there something that I missed, if so please tell me. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)