Talk:Feappii/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm starting this review now. I do note substantial controversy on the talk page, but that was 11 months ago so I'm assuming that's all be resolved. I also see that this has had extensive reworking since it was nominated on July 1st. The article history has been stable for about the past 5-6 weeks, so I think we're good as far as stability (i.e. item 4 of WP:QF) goes. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @RoySmith! Thanks for starting the review. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, I would like to note that the history section (especially the "Modern" part) looks bit like unfinished because I could hardly find any sources which talked about the further history of the society. I tried to write as much as I could find from reliable sources. I hope you understand. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- You should give some indication in the first sentence where we're talking about. It's not until the 2nd paragraph that I came to a place name I recognized (Georgia). Our Ingushetia article says "North Caucasus of Eurasia"; that might work. Adding a locator map to the infobox would also be useful.
- I'm not sure I understand. In the first paragraph, it's indicated that Fyappins inhabit Ingushetia. Why should I write that Fyappins inhabited North Caucasus of Eurasia? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC).
- Prior to reading this article, I had never heard of Ingushetia, let alone know where it is. I just asked my wife, she had never heard of it either. I realize this is only a sample size of 2, but at 0-for-2, my guess is this needs more context to help the reader understand where it is. RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Glad that you both have now heard of it. I clarified in the lead that Ingushetia is located in Caucasus, is this good? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:LEAD for how the lead section should be organized. In particular, it says,
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
That is not the case here. For example, I don't see any mention of how the Dzherakh, Khamkhins, Nazranians, or Gudomakarians bordered on the Fyappins; the later three aren't mentioned at all. - You mention
Georgia, Tusheti
. Isn't Tusheti a part of Georgia, so it should be written in the other order? - I'm not sure what you mean by "approximately during the 16th-17th centuries". Does that mean the migration started earlier or ended later, and if so, is it possible to be more specific: "During the 15th-17th centuries" or whatever is supported by the source?
- Approximately as in either in 16th century or 17th century. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC).
- "Kingdom of Kartli" isn't mentioned in the body (although it is implied by "declaring their act of oath for Kartli" under Contacts with Georia".
- It is mentioned. Kingdom of Kartli is same as Kartli. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC).
- The Caucasian War was from 1817-1864 (at least according to our article on it). It's odd that this would be described as happening during the "18–19th centuries".
Voeynno-Ossetinskiy Okrug, Ingushskiy Okrug, Vladikavkazsky Okrug, Sunzhensky Otdel and lastly the Nazranovskiy Okrug.
most of these are not mentioned in the body.- They're mentioned, check "Within the Russian Empire" in the section "History" of the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC).
- In the infobox, you've got "See Demographics". The purpose of the infobox is to summarize the most important facts, and it's often presented to the reader as a stand-alone summary, so providing a link to click-through to a section of the article doesn't work well. You should list the most recent population figure right in the infobox, along with the year it applies to.
(I'll probably pick this up in a couple of days)
I've read through this a couple of times yesterday and today. I'm afraid I'm going to have to close this as a failed nomination. There's a number of issues, but the biggest one is that English grammar and diction isn't up to the standard required by point 1a ("Well-written") of WP:GACR. I take it from the userboxes on your user page that English is not your first language. Unfortunately, there's too many places in the text where there's words missing, or an odd choice of word, or awkward sentence construction for me to be able to say this meets the "well-written" criteria. My recommendation is to list this at WP:GOCE to get some help improving the writing, then come back and renominate it for another review.
I'm not going to do a detailed review of the rest of this, but here's a couple of things that stand out:
- The "History" section is broken up into a lot of short sub-sections. Some of these (for example, "Contact with Georgia" and "Contacts with Russia", "Within the Russian Empire") are just 2-3 sentences. This may not strictly be a violation of GACR, but it makes for a choppy presention. It would read better as one combined section, or perhaps two ("Modern" and everything leading up to that).
- The "Composition" section is essentially one large table or list. GACR discourages over-use of lists, preferring the information to be presented in prose form. Likewise, the "Notable people" section is presented as a list. Maybe the thing to do there is to pick a smaller sampling of the most important entries and present them in prose for, going into a little more detail for each one. RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)