Talk:Gezi Park protests/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominator: Elmasmelih (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm taking this. I remember being interested in these protests and following updates about it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Been busy, I'll begin this within a week. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I wish you both good luck in the GA process, but to make it clear, I strongly oppose passing this article to GA status as long as the title-related issues aren't resolved. So far, the nominator did not provide a single source during the previous move discussions linking the protests in 2014 to the Gezi Park protests. This article specifically deals with the latter, and no offense to Elmasmelih, but he is in no position to decide whether the post-2013 protests are a continuation of the Gezi ones without providing the required sources (see WP:SYNTH). The only thing I came across was this article from Variety (hardly a reliable source in this context) calling the events "2013-14 Gezi Park protests", but that's about it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan Thanks for the heads up fitz, could you help me out wth that, if i remove all the edits that has no direct connection with gezi protests and rename the article to Gezi Park protests,. will i be out of this situation? All done and i have also renamed the article to Gezi Park protests, so could you open up the GA review again. kazekagetr 09:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, extremely sorry for both, waiting for six months and waiting for me. I intended to finish this earlier but the vastness of this topic slowed me down. Though the GA criteria doesn't concern article titles, the changes proposed above seem right and would have been brought up in the review. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Status table

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm afraid I feel this is far from reaching GA status with the main issues being excess focus and sourcing concerns.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The prose and order of sections needs to be improved.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   There are citation needed tags and unsourced paras.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Too much details in some places, see my comments below

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's just too much to do. Closing this, letting you both work together and renominating it seems to be the best solution. -18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Detailed review

I see a lot of content trimming and reorganisation required at various places. One major concern is WP:SUMMARY. Sections summarising parent articles should be of appropriate length, see WP:DETAIL. For example, in this case the Timeline section summarises Timeline of the Gezi Park protests (For reference, see the GA Timeline of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011) while the Background section is independent. Thus the main article links (Environmental issues in Turkey, Human rights in Turkey, Secularism in Turkey and Economy of Turkey) aren't needed. Many instances of single-sentence paras too. Trim what's unnecessary and arrange them into paras. Also, there are unattributed quotations and citation needed tags. Odd that there are so many citations for the death.

Section-by-section explanation:

• Background
  • The infobox states seven main causes while this section gives describes fewer. This section is too lengthy, consider splitting it into subsections. Maybe into Human rights violations, Islamist/Authoritarian rule, Environmental and Gezi Park.
  • The para "rewrite the military-written constitution" para is unsourced.
  • Does the subsection "Events leading up to the protests" have relevance here? Have sources called each of the mentioned events related to the main 2013 protest?
• Timeline: This section is a bit confusing. I think if the content were rearranged into paras (even subsections if needed) rather than this list form, it would be great. Nevertheless, you both decide amongst yourselves what would be good.
• Types of protest: There are a few really short subsections here and their sourcing seems questionable. Provide subsections for only the main types covered by sources. Minor ones can be merged with the rest.
• Responses:
  • Government: Arrange this into proper paras, rather than the list form. Moreover, I'm wondering whether all those quotations from different sources are relevant. Trim if necessary.
  • Conspiracy claims: I think this needs to be trimmed. Minor ones which are irrelevant can be removed. That Otpor! logo which is non-free cannot be put there per WP:NFC.
• Casualties/Media censorship and disinformation/International reactions: Too small, these should better summarise their parent articles.
• Infobox:
  • Don't see why 'causes' and 'goals' should be there, both have similar content.
  • Under 'Parties involved' listing general groups like feminists, environmentalists seems unneeded; just specific named groups should do.
• One thing I didn't find: the end result was that the park wasn't affected right? why is that not mentioned explicitly or in the infobox?

These are the main issues according to me. Once these are addressed you can renominate the article. Feel free to notify me if you want me to review it again, be happy to. All the best, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)