Talk:Afghanistan/GA2

GA Review

GA FAILED

Procedural close - article not yet at criteria, needs quite a bit of work and nominator has asked for closure. Overall, article isn't too bad, but could do with a copyedit, and reference work.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 18:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Prose

Lede

Generally lede's do not need citations, as the information should be in the prose somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of its 652,000 square kilometers (252,000 sq mi) is covered by the Hindu Kush mountain range at the western end of the Himalayas - "much of" isn't very encylopedic Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and since 2001 by the United States with NATO-allied countries. - "And since 2001" isn't helpful. The rest of the list isn't dated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been called "unconquerable"^{[according to whom?]}
The lede seems quite overlinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan is a unitary presidential Islamic republic with a population of 31 million - the population should be mentioned higher in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The country continues to face severe problems - this isn't encylopedic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link the $. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article comments

There's a lot of duplinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it usual for Etymology to be above History? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wording isn't fantastic. A few times wikilinks are used to explain things, rather than actually explaining things Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Etymology section isn't great wording. Sounds like someone trying to explain it, rather than elequently worded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article in general is written as if the user is aware of the subject. GA articles should be written to give an overview of each section. Something like the History section starts Excavations of prehistoric sites suggest that humans were living in what is now Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago. Could we use something like Humans first began living in Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago, suggested by excavations of prehistoric sites. This sort of wording explains to a general reader about the length of time the nation has been around straight away. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The country sits at a unique nexus point where numerous civilizations have interacted and often fought. - puff. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captions aren't great. The first one in particular means nothing. This isn't an image gallery. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First para of Pre-Islamic period isn't well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
watch out for WP:SEAOFBLUE like at Indo-European-speaking Indo-Iranians. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third para of Islamization and Mongol invasion isn't well cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, there's quite a lot of uncited sentences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of WP:REFBOMB issues - [107][108][109][110][111][112] for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Battles of Mazar-i-Sharif (1997–98) links like this should be piped. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The country's natural resources include: coal, copper, iron ore, lithium, uranium, rare earth elements, chromite, gold, zinc, talc, barite, sulfur, lead, marble, precious and semi-precious stones, natural gas, and petroleum, among other things - "other things" isn't enclopedic Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the table for the largest cities needed? Surely it could be added in prose instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic groups probably should take information from other sections to be expanded.
Administrative divisions - is the full list of areas needed? Even if so, can we use a {{div col}} instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the captions are too long (lots are too short) - Black Hawks of the Afghan Air Force at Kandahar Airfield. As a major non-NATO ally, the Afghan Armed Forces receive most of their equipment and training from the United States. is too long, the information could be explained in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics is responsible for the monitoring and eradication of the illegal drug business.^{[citation needed]} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only three sentences for Human rights? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need to explain that $ is the USD. There are lots of dollars. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Including domestic airports, there are 43 - fragment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

Could we split references and notes a bit better? At the moment we have refs explaining things (such as ref 10) that are written as if they are cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
checklinks throws in lots of errors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs don't really explain a lot. Ref 12 seems to say that Afgranistan is in Asia, but has four references in them. Why? One is plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change "references" -> "Bibliography", "notes" -> "references", and add "notes" for the above as per the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
So, from a quick skim, there's quite a lot above. The main ones are:

Ref fixes - There seems to be some confusion here as to what a reference and what a note is. This needs to be rearranged.
Image captions and tables - There's potentially too many images regardless... But there does need to be a fix to a lot of the captions, which aren't great
Citing in general. There's lots of statements that have no citations. At least if they are at the end of the paragraphs it could mean it is citing the whole paragraph.

I'll put this on hold. I'll give it a couple days, and see if enough has changed for a full review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks a lot for your comments, you noticed a lot that I've missed. I'll see what I can do to fix these issues. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)--Cerebellum (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: On second thought, this will take me more than a week. I recommend failing the article, and I'll resubmit when ready. (I'll review one of your articles, do you care which one?) --Cerebellum (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd leave it open for you to reply. I agree this one isn't quite at the right level (specifically the way some of it is uncited is a big issue, and fixing how the references look could take some time.), so I could have failed it, but I wanted to leave it open in case you thought you were up to the task. I'll close this one as failed.

I think I have three (maybe?) articles nominated at this time - I must get around to promoting more content, it hasn't been easy recently - although once it's copy-edited, I'm nominating Snooker, and the 1985 World Snooker Championship. Take your pick from any unreviewed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.