Talk:Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Improve the non-free use rationale of the poster with this template.
Don't use small font in the infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT.
Resolve the issue with the "[pronunciation?]" tag in the first sentence.
"TV series" → "television series"
"was released" → "premiered"
Try moving some references here to #Production per MOS:TVLEAD.
Add (2014–2019) after Diriliş: Ertuğrul.
"why the TV series is gaining" → "why the television series gained"
I'm not sure whether the first part of the sentence beginning with "One of the reasons" is necessary (I would remove it).
The second mention of Emre Konuk should just be Konuk.

Synopsis and cast

These sections look great.

Episodes

The article titled "List of Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu episodes" should not exist [yet]. Merge it back into this article per MOS:TVSPLIT, which states that "it would take between 50 and 60 episodes to warrant separating those summaries off the main page to an List of Episodes page."
After doing so, add episode summaries for every episode that has aired so far (in your own words).

Production

I don't believe the quote block template is necessary, so I suggest adding it instead to the end of the sentence.
"show. In which, Gülsoy said" → "show, in which Gülsoy said"
"casted" → "cast"
Remove "skilfully" (not a neutral word).

Reception

Add a "Critical response" header/subsection.
Expand this section with the help of WP:RECEPTION.
"gaining popularity for the casting of famous actors" is trivial. Most shows get popular due to the actors in them so it's not that important.
Don't use small font in the table per MOS:SMALLFONT.

References

Archive all archivable sources (use this tool first and then try adding them manually).
I'm not sure whether "fav10" is a reliable source, so I would suggest finding replacements.
A lot of sources are missing authors/websites/dates so try retrieving that information.
In the "|website=" parameter, try finding an official title instead of inserting an actual link (ex. www.gazetevatan.com → Gazete Vatan)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Some Dude From North Carolina, firstly, I don't know where to comment so please move this to the appropriate area if necessary. I can't find much information at all for a critical response section. I checked almost every website (Hürriyet, Sözcü, etc.) but they're either plot summaries or an actor's (or the person a character is historically based on) biography. Is this section absolutely necessary? Limorina (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Limorina: The subsection is necessary, but what you have now is fine. Just add a header and take care of the rest of my suggestions and/or add comments. When you do, ping me again so I can take a look at your progress. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dude From North Carolina, I've done most of the things you have told me to do. I just have to date the citations. It's a bit hard trying to find plot summaries and I don't know if I can do it in two days. The author information for the citations is pretty unclear too for some of them. Limorina (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Limorina: No worries!

Since most of my suggestions have been already been addressed, I am passing the article (just try to remove references from the lead already mentioned in other sections per MOS:LEAD). Great work! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]