Talk:Turkish language/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article over the next couple of weeks. I work slowly so I hope you will be patient, if you are in a hurry please let me know so I can find another reviewer. Nonetheless the article looks better than it was at the FA review, with much less uncited content which was the major concern, so I am optimistic about the outcome. Thanks for working on this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding that quite a few of the sources used are not reliable sources for a GA article. That is a problem, another problem is that there are still uncited paragraphs in the article. This should be fixed very soon, because it could potentially lead to a quickfail. To anyone who is working on the article though I recommend very highly that when finding sources to cite that you focus on academically published sources, preferably in English. Both bad sourcing and no sourcing may jeopardize the review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me those sources please Maunus. And as you know, in those language explaining paragraphs, it is hard to find sources as it is a viral issue. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "viral issue", it shouldnt be hard to find sources about the Turkish language and its history. It is one of the worlds most studied languages. I have removed the unrealiable sources that I found at first look, but I think there may be more.As a rule of thumb if it iss hard to find sources about something, then it probably shouldnt be in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has severe problems with criteria 2a which requires the article to contain "a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline". Currently the references list uses a plethora of different citation styles. This should be cleaned up. This is a lot of work, and frankly it doesn't seem as if the nominator has a lot of experience using citations in wikipedia, the recent introduction of bare links as references certainly definitely does not help. Cleaning up the references to follow a single citation style, and providing correctly formatted references for the missing citations (reliable sources, preferably in English, only use turkish language sources if there it is impossible to find an English language source). Rifat Bali is a reliable source, but he has also published in English, so try to find an english language source of his regarding the linguistic minorities - otherwise there are dozens of books and articles about this on google scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When sorting out the references it would be good to separate notes from references.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some descriptions of grammar and phonology that are very badly formulated and seem to misrepresent the linguistics. For example the description of vowel harmony and the description of verbal morphology are linguistically impreciseUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of work required to make the article conform to criteria 2, and the fact that the nominator has stated they are not prepared to do this work, I will fail the article at this point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]