Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA3

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


 * Multiple content issues, as detailed at this talk page section (transcluded below). Reviewer has no objections to a delist. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections as stated, judging by the points made by TrangaBellam, this should absolutely be delisted, and @Visioncurve should probably read WP:AGF, since he baselessly made the claim that her goal was disruption. Sorry once more for the subpar review. Uness232 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. You need not apologize - if I was reviewing in an area, where I did not have much subject-knowledge, I wouldn't have done a better job:") TrangaBellam (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uness232, there's no baseless accusation. There's a bigger picture that you are not aware of. This user is basically trying to discredit every article related to Turkmens, especially if it is sourced by the works of Turkmenistani authors (see discussions at Magtymguly, Tuqaq and etc). This user claims to have lived in that country, and it can be easily implied by his/her several messages posted in the above mentioned talk pages that he/she apparently formed a certain negative opinion about it. I believe bias and prejudice is very harmful and would like to believe that it is strongly despised by Wikipedian community. A Wikipedian must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. Moreover, I believe that it's disruption when a Wikipedian instead of helping to improve an article when he/she clearly can, discredits other contributors' efforts and hard work. Thanks. -- Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  12:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Visioncurve is the orig. nominator of GA.
 * This page is for discussion of content issues. My conduct can be discussed at a proper venue but be wary of boomerang. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Visioncurve I am well aware of the discussions present in both articles. I sort of agree with you on your last sentence (I would stop short of calling it disruption, but I think it isn't necessarily best practice), and I did mention this at her talk page. I personally do not see any indication of bias, however. TrangaBellam seems to only contradict our assumptions and bad sourcing with academic, reliable sources, and she seems to know a fair bit about the reliability of certain sources. I would personally advise against escalating this any further by going to ANI, a boomerang seems probable here. Uness232 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot improve Tuqaq without reducing the article to a stub and rewriting it - every alternate line (I am not exaggerating) is a novel claim or a misrepresentation.
 * Over this article, the culture and religion section needs to be removed and re-drafted. The sections on dynasties need to be trimmed etc. I could have done all these without going after the GA status but the last time I tried this, people made (valid) claims about why I was rewriting a GA in a radical fashion. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Over this article, the culture and religion section needs to be removed and re-drafted. The sections on dynasties need to be trimmed etc. I could have done all these without going after the GA status but the last time I tried this, people made (valid) claims about why I was rewriting a GA in a radical fashion. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)