Talk:SoloTürk/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 11:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I am looking forward to reviewing your article as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022. I will give you a week to fix your issues before issuing a pass/fail review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellent grammar and couldn't find any typos/mistakes or issues with the MOS:LAYOUT

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I don't speak Turkish, however the turkish language sources in most cases are to reputable newspapers like Hürriyet, CNN Turk, TRT and english sources to Anadolu Agency. In some cases however, I saw inaccurate conflation of kilometer, knots and miles (see below for expanded comment). No copyright violations with Earwig, and translated editions are distinct enough, so no intrawiki HELP:Translate issues either.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I was keeping an eye for any grand claims, with regards to the coup, and relocation of fighter jet, but tone/commentary was neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All image captions are reasonable, and most of images are suitably licensed. I am doubtful whether the emblem itself is freely licensed and would expect it to require WP:NFCC/fair use logo rationale. Re-uploading the image as fair use, or removing it, would resolve this.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold, until issues are resolved.

Units of speed

In one Hürriyet article, it mentions a range of speeds from 100-1200 knots per hour, which translates to ~200km - 2200km, however the wiki in text only converted one of the units. Would be worthwhile double checking all claims about units/speeds, since some of the conversions were done sloppily. Once the units of measurement and image copyright status are resolved, I think this article is ready for GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Hello Shushugah, thanks for picking this up! I'll take a look at this later today. I had F16 - RIAT 2011 (19049718369).jpg in the infobox for some time, until it was changed by FOX 52 to the emblem. The thing is, they have done this to a lot of articles to such extent that I think they might know something that I don't. It's also something that I don't have much knowledge about. So I'll ping them and see if there is a valid explanation. Happy to revert back to the old one in case it's needed. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Shushugah I have no idea why the table is broken, but made it seem much more than just a simple fix. :D I don't know what happened with 200–1200 km/h thing as I don't remember what I intended to write back then, but I've fixed it with using the {{convert}} template here, which now displays "100–1,200 knots (190–2,220 km/h)", and also at other places where a conversion would make sense. Double checked the sources with units in it. Only pending response from FOX 52 now. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's how we do it with info boxes ie: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

[7], [8], [9] everthing from businesses to squadrons to Military branches - cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 15:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Those are uploaded to Commons because they are in the public domain. The ones that aren't in the public domain (eg. No. 1 Group RAF) are uploaded under fair use. There is nothing saying that the logo of SoloTürk is in the public domain, in fact, even the seal of the Turkish Air Force isn't. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Fixed. Anything else, Shushugah? ~Styyx^Talk? 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)