GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 03:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


REMOVE KEB- I mean, hi! An article on a highly populous, well-known country looks like an interesting nomination, so I'll take a look. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I have to go now, but I'll be back later. Tezero (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those citation numbers are not correct mate could you please take look at them again? elmasmelih 16:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must've edited since. "Brief Seismic History of Turkey" and "Brief History of ISAF" are dead links. I trust you can find the rest by their titles. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the dead links with the 'alive' ones. By the way what do you mean by improperly formatted citations ? They have cite web templates though? elmasmelih 13:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do use that template, perhaps, but they need to show the page's publisher (just whatever website it's hosted on, e.g. "IGN" in a page whose URL begins with "http://www.ign.com/...") [publisher], the date the article was written [date], the date you retrieved it [accessdate], and the author's first [first] and last [last] names. Tezero (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying it. I will take care of that three references. Can you provide more of them? elmasmelih 17:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are, in addition to the ones I mentioned above:

In addition, are the following sources reliable?

And for citation 6 ("The World Bank: World Development Indicators Database. Gross Domestic Product 2012. Last revised on 1 July 2013."), see if you can find an archived, stable version at web.archive.org, in case the information changes, which is highly possible if it has been revised.

I think I've decided that I don't care about completely consistent source formatting for GA, but I do care about having the basic information there. At the very least, accessdates and publishers for are necessary for the web citations, in addition to the title and URL. Dates and author names are preferred, but less important. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well i can't do anything for their accesdates mate you should take it into account and I will replace 'istanbul.net' it is a dating site. elmasmelih 22:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you do anything about the accessdates? I can put today for each of them if you want, but why can't you? Also, yes, please do fix istanbul.net. Tezero (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example i cannot know that when '*177: Turkish Atomic Energy Authority - Mission of TAEK' added as a reference right? elmasmelih 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's no problem. Just click each one without an accessdate. If the site isn't dead, put today's date as the accessdate, and if it is, go to http://web.archive.org and find an archived version of the site. (If there isn't an archived version there, remove the information or find another source for it.) I realize it seems silly, but accessdates help show that web retrieval isn't perfect and that, as of that date, the site was working fine. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. elmasmelih 13:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good. Have you looked into the possibly unreliable sources, though? I suspect reliable alternatives would be easy enough to find if you've got Google Books in hand. Tezero (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good except istanbul.net(which I've replaced earlier.) elmasmelih 16:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to slide on the other two, but "statoids" really rubs me the wrong way. That site, however, states, "His source was Turkey's State Institute for Statistics. Mario Pezza sent a spreadsheet with population data from the 2000 and 2007 censuses." Why not find and use that information? Tezero (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please find the page numbers for sources with "page needed" tags, such as 50 and 51.

Also, the following information needs citations:

Tezero (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. elmasmelih 21:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I haven't gone through the sources in depth, but try to find page numbers for the books with "page needed" tags (would they be on Google Books?) while I peruse the body text and do a bit of source formatting. Tezero (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've missed some other things (or have they been added since?) that need sources:

In general, every paragraph should end with a citation, because every fact should be cited. The only exception would be when something's extremely obvious, like WP:BLUE. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of these issues. Are there any other? elmasmelih 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good otherwise. Tezero (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the Economy. If you check the older revisions of this page, you will see that the Economy section merged under one text by consensus. I made partitions but like i said it was merged. And I dont have these books so i cant provide you page numbers mate..elmasmelih 19:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've found some on Google Books. I'll go through the rest of the "page needed" tags and then bring up any final issues I have before passing this. Tezero (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there are still some minor citation issues, but those would be a pain to fix and probably not necessary to the average reader. You're gonna have to fix them if you want to take this to FAC, though. For now, I'll pass this. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tezero i am happy as f*ck right now. If you are eager to help me, we can add the subsection 'Infrastructure' to Economy and can go over those page needed tags. I mean if you are available elmasmelih 17:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elmasmelih, there aren't any "page needed" tags; I found all the pages (or, where I only had access to a table of contents, ranges of pages) before passing. You can add that subsection and ask me for feedback if you want, though; I don't feel strongly about it. Tezero (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero thanks for your collab. on this article mate. We should give each other barnstars :)elmasmelih 19:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More