Talk:Flag of Azerbaijan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 04:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will start the review soon. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hi! It's been a week since your message, are you still up for reviewing? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I became preoccupied with something unexpected this past week. I will have the review by next Sunday, at most. Thank you for your patience. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hello? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am one thirds through reviewing right now but I haven't ran spotchecks yet — should be done by tonight. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918–1920)

"According to American vexillologist Whitney Smith, the creator of the new flag was Ali bey Huseynzade." — Since this is a very specific statement citing what one individual believes, are there opinions contrary to his? As in, is the identity of the flag's creator disputed? If there is near-unanimous or unanimous agreement that it was Huseynzade, it is best not to quote Whitney Smith specifically; a general statement would be more appropriate since there is no unique connection between Smith saying that and the flag creator's identity (for instance, one would not want to write the following statement as "According to Swietochowski, within a few months, the newly adopted flag began to be questioned due to it exclusively representing Turkism"). However, if Smith in fact claimed that, and there are opinions that differ from his, those opinions should have a mention.

Use of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic flag after 1920

"who were military formations of ethnic Azerbaijanis who fought on the side of Nazi Germany" — Avoid repetition of "who" if possible.
"On 6 November 1943, a congress of Azerbaijanis, held in Berlin, Germany, was headed by former Soviet Azerbaijani major Abdurrahman Fatalibeyli. During the congress, the ADR flags were used." — The second sentence comes off awkwardly. Perhaps consider merging these two? → "The ADR flag was used during a congress of Azerbaijanis headed by former Soviet Azerbaijani major Abdurrahman Fatalibeyli, held in Berlin, Germany on 6 November 1943" or similar.
"In the background, on a chest of drawers, is the tricolor flag of the ADR" — Since the image on the left also uses passive phrasing, it feels off-putting to do so again right away. Perhaps a simple "The tricolor flag of the ADR is visible in the background, on the chest of drawers."

Azerbaijan SSR (1920–1991)

"Russian conquer" — Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't "Soviet conquer" be more accurate?

Republic of Azerbaijan (1991–present)

Unlink — "Soviet Azerbaijan"; "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" — linked previously in the prose.
"with the decree" — If it was an executive decree, it should mention the person; and if it was a committee or a national body, mention that.

Design

"In the centre exists a white crescent and an eight-pointed star." — Slightly awkward phrasing. I would recommend a copyedit to "A white crescent and an eight-pointed star is placed in the centre", "A white crescent and an eight-pointed star is in the centre", or similar.
"which was adopted on 12 November 1995" — It is a repetition of what has already been mentioned, so I would suggest you remove it, either from this section or the other.
Unlink — "eight-pointed star" — per above.

Symbolism

Unlink — "Turkism"; "eight-pointed star"; "Azerbaijani National Council"; "Mammad Amin Rasulzade" — per above.
"The first president of the Azerbaijani National Council, Mammad Amin Rasulzade, noted in his speech at the parliament's session of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, that the colours relate to Turkic freedom, modernity, and Islamic culture." — This has already been mentioned in the first section of prose, and is repetitive to mention it again. Perhaps remove it from here or there?

State Flag Day

Both paragraphs — which are too brief — discuss the same event. Perhaps merge them?

Influence

Unlink — "Mammed Amin Rasulzade" — per above. Also, use "Rasulzade" instead of "Mammed Amin Rasulzade".

References

"Azadliq Radiosu"; "National Museum of History of Azerbaijan"; "RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty"; "National Assembly"; "Trend News Agency" — Should not be in italics.
Some references lack an English translation — for uniformity and consistency, please add those to them.

Literature

Title case is not followed in some citations, such as "Transcaucasia, nationalism and social change: essays in the history of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia."
Don't need to specify "p. 116" for Pope 2005 in this section.

And that should do it. This is a very well-written and thoroughly researched article. It should pass. Thank you for your patience, Golden. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hi, thanks for the review! I've addressed all your points except the italic references. The "website" parameter automatically italicizes the website names. I'm not aware of any way to change that without switching parameters. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Concise and succinct, one of the better good article nominees I have reviewed. The article overs essentially all aspects, cites high quality sources, is illustrated beautifully with apt captions, and the prose flows so well. Perhaps with a bit more focus on the prose, it will be good for an FA nomination. Fantastic work, Golden! — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]