Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkey/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Turkey

 * Nominator(s):    kazekagetr  20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the country named Turkey. This article was a FA, now a GA, and i have completed all the things that has been stated in peer review. kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Only examining references and reference formatting so far: ...and I'm stopping here. There are 317 references. I'm not even 10% of the way in, and I'm struggling to find any that are bibliographically complete and properly formatted. Additionally, browsing over the cited material in general, I feel this article is built primarily upon relative weak sourcing: tertiary sources, government publications, news reports. There are mountains of literature on nearly every aspect of Turkey: scholarly articles and books published by major, respected publishing houses. The FA criteria require that articles represent a comprehensive survey of the literature, and even overlooking the state of the reference formatting, I simply do not see the results of a truly comprehensive survey here. Regrettably (and without comment whatsoever on prose issues), I must oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a consistent problem where websites are cited by their URL and not their name (or the name of the publishing entity). This is true of nearly all cited websites and needs to be corrected across the board (for a counterexample, the IMF source correctly identifies it as the International Monetary Fund rather than merely www.imf.org).
 * Sources that are not in English need to have their language (generally Turkish, I assume) indicated.
 * Author formatting is not consistent. In the first dozen sources, I see both Last, First and First Last presentations.
 * At least five separate references are to various elements of The World Factbook (reference #2, 5, 193, 201, 250 at this time); all FIVE are formatted differently.
 * Reference 6 (2014 Human Development Report) has insufficient bibliographic information.
 * All ISBN numbers should ideally be correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13 (reference 7 has an ISBN-10). Happily, this is easy to fix. No Wikipedia editor should leave home without the official ISBN converter! At least one book (Steadman and McMahon) is missing an ISBN entirely.
 * Reference 8 ("Turkey in the Balkans") is incorrectly formatted, needs the website indicated properly, and is missing the available publication date.
 * Book sources are not consistent about whether they provide publication year (as with National Geographic Atlas of the World) or precise publication date (Steadman and McMahon). Howard's The History of Turkey has no publication date given whatsoever.
 * Why is this a reliable source?
 * Reference 15 (Köprülü and Leiser) is incorrectly formatted and missing a host of essential bibliographic information.
 * Reference 16 (and others like it) are functionally bare URLs. In this case, that's doubly inappropriate, as it is a Google Books presentation of a print source, and should be correctly cited as such.
 * Reference 17 (Journal of Genocide Research) is not formatted in the same manner as other journal references.
 * Same goes for 18 (Slavic Review).
 * Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and generally not preferred as a reference at the FA level; if retained, reference 19 is incomplete and improperly formatted.

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
 * Alt text is not a FA requirement. It is a matter for individual preference (you could always add the text yourself). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not required, but it is something all FAs should have. It tells those without images enabled on their browsers and the visually impaired what the image shows. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.