Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA4

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 23 December 2022 (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: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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):
The lead section contains new information that is not talked about in the body of the article. The lead section should rather be a summary of what is already talked about in more detail in the body. This concerns particularly the first two paragraphs of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
There seems to be alot of parts that are about general Oghuz Turkic things and not Turkoman specifically. (See comments next few comments down below.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
In the section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Language, the quote does not seem relevant because it is not talking or referring to Turkmens in any way. Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Literature seems to just be about general Oghuz Literature and not about Turkoman literature specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Compliant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Maybe remove the images that are not specifically about or of things that are Turkmen/Turcoman/Turkoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Can pass with some organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Turkoman_(ethnonym)#Language where you use the world "peculiar" do you actually mean to use the word "particular" that would make more sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Religion and culture can probably be combined into the same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TrangaBellam (the prev. GA delister + reviewer of this GA)

The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie. I will request Gazozlu —who appears to have taken over the mantle of review from me— to fail this GA.

When I had delisted the GA, I wrote:

As Karamustafa shows, various powers were using and disusing the term [Turkoman] —with different perspectives in different contexts— towards different political ends [..] This article should have been about the variant usage (and meanings) of the term "Turkoman" across the centuries — this has been the only focus of scholars [please find me an exception], from Peacock to Karmustafa.

Does our article have anything on this barring a single line?

I also wrote:

How many scholars comment on "Turkoman literature", as against "Turkmen literature"?

Gazozlu raises the same point in their review, once again. Why do we have the quote in the language section is equally perplexing.

Besides, there are unsourced lines like

The greatest spread of the term "Turkmen" occurred in the era of the Seljuq conquests.

I am reasonably sure that this is a dubious claim.

To dig further, why do you cite the fact of the first mention of the term to the translation of a primary source from 1942? Why are you citing some generic social psychology text on paternity and aspects thereof (Fathers and Their Families) to describe medieval Turkoman culture? Equally ridiculous to use some random author with no scholarly credentials to describe the changes inflicted by Islam on Turkmen culture! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden (1992; p. 212) speculates that a Chinese and Sogdian source from the 9th century might have been the first source to mention the ethnonym; we have nothing on that. that non-Oghuz Turks such as Karluks also have been called Turkomans and Turkmens is a misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve, TrangaBellam, and Gazozlu: What is the status of this review? Have any improvements been made since the comments in September? CMD (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators last real edits to wikipedia seem to have been a month prior to the comments here being made, which is over two months ago from now. There is no indication that they will be back any time soon. There was also almost a 2 month gap between this review being started, and its first comments. Gazozlu (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will fail in a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrangaBellam, thanks for your objective remarks and professional review. I'm sorry to have responded this late, as I've been a little occupied with a handful of important things lately. I will start implementing your suggestions right away. Thanks again and take care! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern (I don't even know who is the page's GA reviewer here?!), please, your initial suggestions have all been implemented. Waiting for your further remarks, thanks. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; let me go through the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9

This map seems to be WP:OR. I don't say that the map is wrong, but it doesn't provide any sources, so it's OR. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2022 (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.