Talk:Khojaly massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Will have this one to you within a couple of days. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead is too short and out of proportion to the rest of the article. Remember it has to act as a "mini article" and should summarise every section
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged in the lead per MoS except for controversial information (which is contained). I would remove a few citations in the lead as it is
• In the massacre section; "The parties may not use civilians to shield military targets from attack or to shield military operations including retreats. Thus a party that intersperses combatants with fleeing civilians puts those civilians at risk and violates its obligation to protect its own civilians" - should use a quote template
• In the Background section I would merge two of the smaller paragraphs into one as it will improve readability
• There are six verification and citation needed tags in the Commemoration section! Also unreliable sources
• Recognition section is too short, would consider expanding

References

• The toolserver is down so I had to check the references myself, some of them are lacking proper date formats and publisher names. This should focus on one date format (d-m-y or m-d-y)
• There are a few unreliable sources in the Commemoration section

On hold

The major problem here is that the article is lacking some references and most of it has "verification needed" and citation needed tags in it. Some parts of the article could do with a copy edit. The lead also needs expanding. If all of the above were addressed and the references were sorted out then this could have a fighting chance to pass the GAN. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and will see the progress. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - not listed

As per a recent discussion in the previous reviewed article and on the GA cup talk page, the nominator is blocked and this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. There are far too many problems in order for this article to pass, so please feel free to renominate this once everything is addressed. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)