Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Uness232 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Grammar and capitalization sometimes off. There are also inconsistencies in diction (endonym is once called 'self-name' for example), and formatting (for example, the term Western world does not need quotes around it). Some more suggestions: "for ~~the~~ people of Oghuz Turkic origin" sounds clearer to my ears at least, but in certain circumtances both can be justified. "Turkic languages family" makes more sense. "spread with the expansion ~~of the area of residence of that part~~ of ~~the~~ Oghuz Turks that converted to Islam" is much better I think. "more extensive period ~~of establishment of beyliks~~" the repetition there seems unnecessary to me. Certain consistency issues, for example the spelling of Seljuq/k or Og(h)uz. "Turkmens and Kurdsish tribes Belliqan, Milan, Balashaghi, Qurashli, and Qochkiri." And a question, "Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens, descendants of the Oghuz Turks who mostly adhere to a Turkish heritage and identity." Is this supposed to be Turkish or Turkic?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is five (now six, actually) paragraphs, I believe that is too long per MOS:LEAD. All other issues are solved.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	As the issues have been resolved, this passes quite easily.
	2b. 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).	As there is no consensus on Encyclopedia Britannica as a WP:RS it is best avoided. If there is justification for it being used here, I will give it a pass, as other sources are generally reliable. There are also however, a very small minority of sources (54, 92) that are not verifiable as the sites are not accessible or result in server errors (at least from where I am). As I previously stated, the sources I can reach seem generally reliable, there are quite a bit of sources from books that I don't always have access to, but I have done my best to find and read the quoted section from the preview.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The part that states that Turkomania became the preferred name for the time only includes a source from Encyclopedia Iranica, which does not mention the term even once. Even more troubling is the link from Turkomania, which as this article claims is in Eastern Anatolia, links to Turkmenistan. (Eastern Anatolia is an anachronism, albeit an acceptable one, or I guess it could be 'the east of Anatolia', which in that case must be clarified.)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Seems very unlikely, pass unless I spot something later.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not much to say here, it does stay focused on the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Generally, yes. There is some excess detail on the Dynasties section, but nothing too serious.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Quite neutral, all opinionated material is sourced.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring or content disputes, generally constructive and complementary editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Seems okay to me, although some tags in Commons are incomplete. (they are all really old, so their international public domain status would seem to mirror the US one.)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All pictures are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Was on hold for a long while (much more than the default 7 days), improvements to the article have largely ceased, and many of the changes I've suggested here were neither taken care of nor opposed, as my other suggestions were. It's a shame, as this is a largely well-written and important article.