Talk:Doukhobors/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are some prose issues - unclear phrasing, run-ons, etc. I'll do a pass and see what I can fix myself and make some comments here after. I've gone through and removed a tranche of uncited, repetitive, or un-encyclopedic content. Please do a read-through yourself and ensure that the prose meets high standards for readability and an encyclopedic tone written from a neutral perspective. I can provide specific comments/examples if you'd like, but I think my sweep took care of the biggest issues, so take a run-through yourself first if you can.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The 'External links' section is overlong and unmanaged. It doesn't need to include any random article online about the Doukhobors. Please go through and clean up and consider what external links would add value to the article for the reader - well chosen, relevant, and so on. Better a few appropriate links than a sea of blue leading to confusion for the reader.
2. Verifiable with no original research: There are still several areas and sentences of uncited content. I can go through and add citation-needed tags to all of them if you would prefer, but please read through yourself and make sure there are sufficient citations for every fact stated.
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some sources are reliable. Some are in Russian, so I will WP:AGF assume good faith and treat them as reliable. However, there are many references I cannot regard as reliable. Some examples: the first reference is to a Google Doc from Spirit-Wrestlers.com. The 20th is the same (Tarasoff). The 26th reference contains a note that should not be part of the reference. Same with #47, about the census. #59, re: villages, is not a reference but a note and should be moved and cited. #66 does not seem a reliable source (re: The Band). There are other issues. Please take a thorough look at WP:RS and WP:REF and clean up the references with those guidelines in mind.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	references 2, 3 and 4 have no page numbers. #2 is a reference to a book on Slavonic languages; as far as I can tell doing a search for "origin" and "first written record", it does not contain the information represented in the sentence. Reference #6 is to a blog. Ref.#7,8 and 9 have no page numbers. #10 is an untranslated Russian reference, and #11 is a genealogy blog. How dependable is the information there? Who knows? This is a well written and interesting article, but its references need work. The 'Main Sources' section seems to deal only with language-centric references. Merge with 'Bibliography' and 'References' as appropriate. The 'Additional references' section should be moved to External Links, References, or removed entirely.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Several pieces of uncited information appear to be original research, such as the information about modern linguistic Russian in Doukhobor communities in Canada.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio shows one source with definite copying (https://www.ronperrier.net/2019/11/27/doukhobors/), but on inspection I believe they are copying from Wiki and not vice-versa. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is good. No issues here. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail is good, no issues. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	For a subject that might present pitfalls, neutrality looks good. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No edit wars or other issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	As this is English wiki, would be good to have an attribution and description in English as well as Georgian, for the third image (the worship place in Georgia). Hold.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In general, images are good, but some captions don't meet WP:MOS - citations, phrasing, etc. Minor issues that I can fix myself during the prose review. Provisional pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Status query

Ganesha811, DoggieTimesTwo, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, DoggieTimesTwo hasn't made any edits to the article based on this review—indeed, they've only made eight edits anywhere on Wikipedia since the review was opened—and Ganesha811 doesn't appear to have completed significant portions of the review. If DoggieTimesTwo isn't going to respond to the issues raised in the review thus far, then it should be closed even if it isn't complete, since there's no point to putting in the remaining work if it won't be addressed. If they are, then they need to do so soon, in which case Ganesha811 would need to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to start edits based on the suggestions soon. DoggieTimesTwo (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoggieTimesTwo, BlueMoonset, apologies for the slow pace of work on this review. Honestly, it just slipped my mind during a very busy month at work. I'll restart work and complete my initial review this weekend. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Jaba1977 about the attribution and description issue on their Commons talk page. In addition, I am comfortable with fixing prose issues and reference problems, but it would be appreciated to receive some guidance on WP:MOS issues. DoggieTimesTwo 03:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, I have added the ^{[unreliable source?]} template onto questioned citations (excluding page number errors). DoggieTimesTwo 03:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a new edit, I have removed the last sentence in the summary and citation 6, and replaced it with a new sentence that has similar general meaning. DoggieTimesTwo 04:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update on review

I have made specific comments above, but on references, number of citations needed, original research, and prose, this article needs substantial work to bring it up to GA status. Please let me know if you think you will have the time to dedicate to do this. References especially needs a lot of work. Remember that a good encyclopedia article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a structured and edited guide to the subject that is clear to the reader. Including every link and piece of information findable about the Doukhobors is *not* the purpose of this page. In general, irrelevant content removal and cleanup is the key to getting this article to GA status. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will be dedicating as much time as I can to bring this article up to Good Article status, focusing on the citations and cleaning up the page. DoggieTimesTwo 04:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, shouldn't this article review be placed on Hold until those changes are made? This has been ongoing for quite some time already.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, DoggieTimesTwo, I will give a little while for improvements to be made. If in two weeks, the article is not clearly on the path to becoming a GA, the review will be put on hold or failed. This has been a slow process from both me and the nominator, and I'm mostly ok with that, but I agree we should come to a decision sooner rather than later. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable and positive at the same time. Good luck to both of you, I wish you and the article well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoggieTimesTwo, please let me know if you will have time to continue working on this article. We have a week or so left before my deadline to make a final decision re: GA status. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be devoting most of my time this week to improving the article, and much of my work will be done today. Thanks for your hard work reviewing this article! DoggieTimesTwo 19:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoggieTimesTwo, just a reminder, I'll be looking over this again on Sunday night to assess it for GA status. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoggieTimesTwo, hi! Looking at the article once more, it is significantly improved. However, I do not believe it reaches GA status. There are still too many uncited claims throughout the article, and a number of cited sources are not reliable in my view. There are other issues as well - on prose, on original research, and on focus. Unfortunately, this article does not pass right now. That doesn't mean you should stop working on it, though! Keep on improving the article. I hope to see it re-nominated and passing GA status sometime in the future. Thank you for your hard work on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]