Talk:Place name changes in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Exoplanetaryscience (talk · contribs) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Review opinions are given as a percentage, 50% or more is a pass, 50 to -50% is neutral, and <-50% is a fail. Each opinion is taken into account with the whole article.

Lead Section

• Summary

The main section is a bit wordy, but sums up the article fairly well. However, no references are sourced for it, which could be improved.

• Details
  • References: 0
  • Length: 17 lines
  • Data: 1.990 KB

• Other

...To strengthen the first official language thousands of names... comma between language and thousands

...In the early decades of the 21st century Turkey has been negotiating... Also add comma between century and Turkey

...Places names that have formally changed in Turkey... either change to Place names or Places' names

... and in some cases are written...

• Opinion

Neutral(-10%)

History

• Summary

The history section sums up the topic well, no large complaints.

• Details
  • References: 30
  • Length: 60 lines
  • Data: 5.369 KB

• Other

No complaints.

• Opinion

Pass(90%)

Current status

• Summary

The section covers a fairly inconsequential topic that might be useful to merge with history.

• Details
  • References: 4
  • Length: 8 lines
  • Data: 0.903 KB

• Other

The section should probably be expanded or merged with history

• Opinion

Neutral(-20%)

Comparative analysis

• Summary

A useful section, no complaints.

• Details
  • References: 9
  • Length: 21 lines
  • Data: 1.443 KB

• Other

The picture of Turkish renaming is fairly small, slightly too small to accurately make out the key. Might be useful to enlarge for both aesthetic and easily readable purposes.

• Opinion

Pass(+80%)

Notable geographical name changes

• Summary

Sums up the individual languages and topics at an easy-to understand level, and to a level well in-depth, but slightly too detailed to a level where a reader's attention span may wander.

• Details
  • References: 40+
  • Length: 50+ lines
  • Data: 10.118 KB

• Other

No complaints

• Opinion

Pass(+60%)

Overall

• Summary

The article doesn't discuss a very notable topic, but does an adequate job of describing the topic. It explains it in a way easily understandable and to a level comprehensible to most.

• Details
  • References: 69
  • Length: 100+ lines
  • Data: 46.99 KB

• Other

None

• Opinion

Pass(+50%)

Review Issues

Unfortunately, Exoplanetaryscience, this is a highly non-standard review that does not seem to be based on the Good Article criteria. Review opinions should not be based on a self-designed percentage scale, but need to go over the various requirements and see whether the article meets them. The lead section review should be based on the criteria in WP:LEAD, and your claim that it needs to be sourced is contrary to that guideline, as lead sections are generally not sourced unless they contain quotes (which must be) or controversial statements. Regular statements in the lead that are sourced when presented with more detail in the body of the article do not need to also be sourced in the lead.

Unless you are prepared to do a standard review that covers how the article compares against the actual criteria—prose quality, for example, and you should check to be sure the article doesn't contain copyvios or close paraphrasing—then the review should probably be halted and the nomination put back into the GAN pool so it can be selected by a new reviewer. Thank you for trying, but perhaps you should wait to review until you have a bit more experience in the process and how it works. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)