Talk:Tzachas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Give me a little time to go over the article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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.	First paragraph in the body should be a note. What does 1090/1091 mean. 1090 or 1091, 1090 and 1091 or maybe something else? It is unecessary to put the same citations over and over again right next themselves in the article. Should the infobox be Infobox military person? One dead link in the article, using the Checklinks tool.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Only one section, which needsmaybe to be split.
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.	Is there a reference for the fact that he was an Oghuz Turk?
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Only three sources listed. I found a couple other sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi User:Tomandjerry211, sorry for the delay, I only just now saw your review. On the points you raised:

• "First paragraph in the body should be a note." I disagree, it discusses the sources on his life, and is directly pertinent to the "Life" section.
• "1090/91" means in 1090 or 1091, it is a common shorthand e.g. in the case of the sources using the Islamic calendar, where years do not coincide with the Western calendar. 1090 and 1091 would be 1090–91, which is how I've denoted the regnal dates.
• "It is unecessary to put the same citations over and over again right next themselves in the article" I am not sure what you mean
  • I mean some thing like this: "The T30 HMC served in World War II. It later served in the First Indochina War.", this is unecessary to do.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, you mean in the second paragraph. You're right, I've removed the one redundant set. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not really, I mean it could, but there is no firm rule. I prefer to keep it simple with this one.
• Fixed dead link, Brill keeps moving its articles around.
• On splitting the article, there is really not that much info for it to be necessary. Having one-paragraph sections merely to have sections is rather beside the point.
• All Anatolian Turks were Oghuz Turks.

Thanks for taking the time to review this, I am awaiting further feedback. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Passing, Well done!--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)