Talk:Operation Golden Fleece/GA1

GA Review

Passed. sawyer * he/they * talk 00:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur Excited to review this, as I have a strong interest in the Caucasus region, and we're lacking in good coverage of the breakaway states in particular. Thanks for your nomination! I aim to have actionable feedback within a few days. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Well-written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
- note: I did some copyediting for clarity & ease of reading.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Y

Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Y
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) Y
- I can't access the majority of the sources, whether due to them being offline or in Greek (which I can't read), but the ones I could access and/or machine-translate match to the article well. All of them seem quite reliable, however if you take this article to FAC, the reviewers there may take issue with the use of a PhD thesis as a major source; they're far stricter about that kind of thing than at GAN.
it contains no original research Y
- haven't found anything of concern.
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Y
- ditto.

Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic Y
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each clock

On 27 September 1993, Sukhumi was captured by the Abkhazians, leading to many civilian casualties; including victims from the Greek minority. "captured" here is wikilinked to Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Sukhumi - from what I can tell, there's no standalone article on the capture of Sukhumi itself, only the article on the related ethnic cleansing, which I'm not sure is strictly relevant to this article. The wikilink could be considered somewhat of a WP:EGG, and I think it could be reworded for clarity & NPOV, or even just de-linked.

@Sawyer-mcdonell: I delinked it. Thank you for the review, if there is anything else that needs to be addressed let me know.--Catlemur (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Y
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Y
- (not a requirement for GA, just a suggestion) I quite like the ancient depiction of Jason and the Golden Fleece illustrating the article, however I'm unsure as to whether it should be in the infobox, since it's more of a background information illustration than directly relevant to the article. I have to assume that there aren't many relevant Commons images to use for this article, but I think perhaps the picture could just be moved out of the infobox and the infobox left unillustrated. Let me know what you think!

I move the Golden Fleece illustration to the background section.--Catlemur (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur I've got my initial review + comments done; overall it's a solid article! I'll continue looking through it in case I catch anything new or have any other comments/questions. Ping me whenever you've got a chance to review my review! :) sawyer * he/they * talk 01:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur everything looks excellent now. Thanks for writing a very interesting article, and congratulations :) sawyer * he/they * talk 00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.