Talk:Baku/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, I'll take this. Will have this to you within 48 hours. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   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. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

Initial comments

• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged in the lead per MoS except for controversial information. I'd remove a few refs in the lead that is mentioned later on
• "the old Inner City (21.5 ha)" - convert this into acres too?
• "Another theory suggests that the name Baku is derived from the ancient Caucasian Albanian city which was called Baguan.[citation needed]" - destory!
• The lead could summarise the article better, it is lacking some of the history of the city. I would suggest looking at other good capital cities such as London or Berlin that has good leads
• Vast amounts of the History section are unreferenced. Remember at least every paragraph in the article should contain some citations are these claims need to be sourced, per the GA criteria. At least from the "Rise of the Shirvanshahs and the Safavid era" to the "Discovery of oil" section is unreferenced.
• The are two citation needed tags in the article that need to be destroyed (ie. replaced with real refs)
• The Religion section could do with a copyedit, specifically merging the two paragraphs to create a larger one
• The Tourism and shopping section could also be merged. It is also vastly unreferenced
• Could definitely copyedit the Music and media section... merging the short paragraphs for example
• WP:OVERLINKING in the Sports and Education sections
• The Health care section is too short - best to either expand it or merge it with something else
• Notable residents unreferenced

References

• The toolserver is down so I had to check the references myself, some of them are lacking proper date formats and publisher names

On hold

In its current state this article does not meet the GA criteria. The major problem here is that most of it is vastly unreferenced and some of the sections could do with a general copyedit. If all of the above were addressed and the references were sorted out then this would have a fighting chance to pass the GAN. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and will see the progress. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Jaguar, sorry if I'm interrupting, but when an article has multiple completely unreferenced sections (not counting plot sections), that's an automatic fail. This therefore shouldn't have been placed on hold for having that and when it meets quick-fail criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, @Jaguar: - I did have some other advice, but since the nominator, Yacatisma has been blocked for sockpuppetry, I think the odds of the issues being resolved are low, so as Snuggs says, you should probably fail this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, @Ritchie333: I know that the nominator is blocked and this article should have been failed, were this not part of the GA cup I would have failed it straight away but I have to wait another six days before waiting to fail it in order to get my points. I feel that this is wrong, and I have requested the rules to be changed/clarified on the GA cup talk page. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The GA process and article improvement thereof is more important than the cup. Do what you think is right, and if you get no points, well it's not the end of the world. I quickfailed A Christmas Carol fully expecting to get 0 points in the cup, yet it was the right decision in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I think I've been getting carried away recently with the objectives of the cup and not the definition. I don't mind losing some points, if need be I'll review another article. Anyway:

Close - not promoted

As per above. The article does not meet the GA criteria at this time ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)