Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing, be back with comments soon. Wugapodes (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
AGFing that sources are used appropriately and undue weight is not being given as I can't read through all 150 sources
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

Comments

The lead seems overly cited, but they may be results of consensus and citing controversial statements. I'll look through WP:LEAD again to make sure it's okay.
There should not be an interlanguage link in the middle of the prose like there is with "Ahmet İnsel (tr)" and "Jacob M. Landau (ger)". Either make it a WP:REDLINK or put it in a see also if the person is intimately related to the topic.
The first paragraph of Ideology is almost entirely quotes. Which, will not an overt violation of the criteria, I think has larger problems including copyright (as one quotation is incredibly long), a lack of summary of sources, unencyclopedic voice, and neutrality. I recommend seeing the essay WP:QUOTE, particularly WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE.
As I'm reading more, I think the article has an issue with citation overkill and may benefit from bundling citations. For example: "described by scholars and journalists as a terrorist organization.^{[5][24][27][28][29]}", "It is made by holding up the forefinger and little finger.^[39][40]", "The Grey Wolves are Pan-Turkist^[2][3]", and the worst I've seen so far, "In their ideology and activities, they are hostile to virtually all non-Turkish elements within Turkey, including Kurds,^[3][46][48] Alevis,^[49] Armenians,^[8][48] Greeks,^[8][48] and Christians in general.^[8][50]" which has 10 citations and repeats ref 8 and ref 48 for almost every item.
After finishing the Ideology section, I'm not even sure I fully understand what the ideology is. I got distracted by the quotes and jumping in and out of them. The section needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the quotations in it.
Also, the map doesn't make sense. It's not immediately apparent why the map is there or what the map is showing.
You shouldn't pipe the link to Political violence in Turkey (1976–80) to remove the "in Turkey" part as "political violence between 1976 and 1980" is ambiguous.
"Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.^{[14][21][22][58][59]}" way too many citations.

Results

Not Listed I believe this article requires a fundamental rewrite to satisfy the criteria. The article is at least a quarter quotations. The instances of prose that are not quotations have so many citations that reading is broken up by a row of blue numbers 3 to 5 items long. Some instances have sentences fragmented by every other word being cited. I did not list every instance in my comments as it would be largely repetitive. But I think that this article is a long way from satisfying criterion one. I strongly recommend looking through WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:OVERCITE before renomination as this is a prime example of how those two issues can kill readability. Wugapodes (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]