Talk:Battle of Goychay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see an article from an under-represented area, but as currently written, this article has major issues that would prevent it from being GA:

Suggest getting a copy edit from WP:GOCE as there are many partial sentences, tense errors, run-ons, etc. giving the impression of a translation by a non-native speaker. The prose in this article is currently not up to GA standards.
Almost all of the sources are from the Azeri or Turkish perspective, raising questions of whether this article is WP:NPOV. There are only three Russian and English sources, leading to the conclusion that only the Azeri/Turkish perspective is being represented here.
Inconsistent use of sfns
Significant number of duplicate links - terms only need to be linked once in the lead and once in the body
The original English version of Muratov and Allen should be cited, not the Russian translation
Ganin's entry on Bicherakovy does not support the statements it is cited for "I refused the command of the army of deserters and cowards", he wrote to his brother, Georgi Bicherakhov. In total, over the period of the fighting, according to Bicherakhov himself, his unit lost more than 100 soldiers. and these sentences are a direct translation of text from the Russian Wikipedia article on Lazar Bicherakov
Rüştü's memoirs are not WP:VERIFIABLE in the way that the citation is currently formatted Kges1901 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Well, @Kges1901:, thank you for reviewing this article!

Yes, I'm non-native speaker, also this is the first article that I've ever nominated for GA on English Wikipedia. And process is largely different from its Azerbaijani counterpart. The article was translated from Azerbaijani Wikipedia with some additions to it. I submitted a request for getting a copy-edit here.
Unfortunately, this topic has been poorly covered and there are no online sources for it (apart from some mentions from pro-Azerbaijani or state-sponsored sites). I might have to check the library for Azerbaijani and Russian sources, and even get PDFs of the sources to prove their validity.
Y I think I fixed the sfn issue.
Y Removed the duplicate links.
Y added the original 1953 publication in English + made it an sfn.
Y added a link that mentions the statement from a Russian-language Armenian website.
Y I added more information on Rüştü's book. Fortunately, someone added a link to the book itself two days ago. I also added links to the other sources. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses and attempts to address the source disparity. As the article is a long way from meeting criterion 1 (being well written), however, I am failing this nomination without prejudice against a renomination following the GOCE copyedit, as the main significant issue with the article is criterion 1. Kges1901 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]