Wikipedia:Peer review/Abdurauf Fitrat/archive1

Abdurauf Fitrat

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

This article is essentially a translation of the article in German Wikipedia which was written by myself. I nominated it for the good articles, but the nomination failed. English is not my first language, I'm not too used to producing English prose, and even though I did my best to the amend linguistic issues that were raised in the GA review, I am positive that a peer review by someone more familiar with the subtleties of English grammar is the right way to continue.

I'd like to know if the phrasing is clear and encyclopedic throughout the entire text, if the grammar is right, and whether the article is ready to be renominated as good article, or possibly even as a featured article.

Thanks, → «« Man77 »» 18:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dugan Murphy

I'm a first-language English speaker, so maybe I can help. Here are some comments upon reading through the article, particularly the spots that don't immediately make sense to me as an English speaker totally unfamiliar with the subject of this article and fairly unfamiliar with the history of Fitrat's part of the world.

The lead makes inconsistent use of the serial (AKA Oxford) comma. You'll want to be consistent one way or the other throughout the article, per MOS:SERIAL.
How are you using "lyric" in the lede? Do you mean Lyric poetry? If you mean poetry in general, American English speakers often use "verse" when comparing to prose. Note the first bullet point of Verse. I'm not sure if this is true in British English.
Does "dramatic literary texts" refer to Drama, a Play (theatre), or something else?
In the lede, "turned into" would sound better as "became".
The sentence that starts "In opposition to" probably needs more commas, like "In opposition to, and in exile from the Bukharan emir, he sided with the communists."
I notice "honour" in the infobox, which tells me this article is using British English. If so, you'll want to be consistent with that and seek a native British English speaker for additional input. I'm going to notice uses of English in the article that are different from what I'm used to, but I'm not likely to notice instances of American English that ought to be converted to British so the article is consistent. And consider adding Template:British English to the top of the article to make that clear.
"Fitrats Soviet, russified name" — do you mean "Fitrat's"?
Wikilink first use of Bukhara?
Is "Abdurahimboy" supposed to be written out like that? And the last three letters Wikilink to Bey, which is spelled differently.
"begone studies" — you mean "begun"?
"SHakuri" has an extra capital letter.
And now a more general comment, having just reached the beginning of the "Stay in Istanbul and Jadid leader" section. This article is great about explaining conflicting theories from different historians about this or that aspect of Fitrat's life, but as somebody who went through two FACs on one article and had to dramatically cut down that article's length in the process (it was 160k bytes at first nomination and it was 118k bytes when promoted), I'm going to suggest that you summarize more those discrepancies among historians for the sake of brevity. I also feel that focusing a lot on which researcher said what makes the article sound less encyclopedic, unless a conflict in theories is an important part of the historiography.
Is it necessary to quote Khan's use of "Sometimes"?
Why are the titles of his Istanbul books in quotation marks rather than italics?
There appears to be a missing period directly preceding citation 14.
What is a "new method" school?
"April of 1917" should be "April 1917" per MOS:BADDATE.
When you offer English translations in parentheses like "Chagataian discussion forum", I don't think the quotation marks are necessary. In fact, I think when you're translating book titles, you should put those parenthetical translations into italics.
I think you need a comma directly preceding citation 53
"who the real enemies of the Muslim, and especially the Turkic, world are" as a quote needs a citation. The colon following that quote should be a period.
"a scientific expedition whose goal was" should be "a scientific expedition, the goal of which goal was".
Does "School for Oriental Music" need to be in quotation marks?
Looks like "should use Fitrat" should be "should use, Fitrat". That still makes for a somewhat a clumsy sentence, however, so you might consider rewording and/or breaking it up.
I'm seeing both DMY dates as well as MDY dates and this article should be consistent in one or the other. There's a {{Use dmy dates|date=December 2014}} tag, so you should either use DMY everywhere or switch that tag.
Wikilink plenipotentiary?
The sentence that starts "Instigated by the Soviet plenipotentiary" is a clumsy sentence and should be reworded or broken up.
I think there should be a comma after "According to Adeeb Khalid" and after "According to Uzbek scholars".
"The communists believed to recognize" might read better as "The communists believed they recognized"
Communist is inconsistently capitalized. I don't think it needs to be unless the word is part of a proper noun like Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
"last book with political relevance" should probably be "last book of political relevance" or "last politically-relevant book"
What is a "powerful control instance of political and social activity"?
Should "the following generation of literates" be "the following generation of readers"? If I'm reading this correctly, I don't think I ever see "literate" used in this way.
"a 15 minutes long show trial" should change to "a show trial of 15 minutes" or maybe "a 15-minute show trial".
"1957, after Fitrat's rehabilition" should start with "in". And is "rehabilition" a typo for "rehabilitation"? If so, how are you using that word here?
"In the beginning, the Soviet Union..." In the beginning of what?
The "After the celebrations" sentence looks like it is missing one or two commas and maybe should be two sentences instead.
Change "'80s" and "'90s" to "1980s" and "1990s" per MOS:DECADE
You need to swap out all “ for " per MOS:CURLY
I don't know how you got the quotation marks on bottom with „Indian rebels“, but that's gotta be a typo. Shows up again with „Uzbek classical music and its history“.
Two thirds" should be "two-thirds" per MOS:FRAC
"1924/25" should be "1924–1925" according to MOS:DATERANGE. Same for "1911/1912".
Is there a citation for the information in the "Number of Fitrat's texts by period and category" table?
How are you using "oeuvre"?
Why put "victims" in quotation marks. Are you quoting the source? Consider replacing with "subjects" without the quotation marks.
"(the protagonist of Qiyomat, an opium smoker like Nasreddin(" should be "(the protagonist of Qiyomat, an opium smoker like Nasreddin)"

That's what I found. Didn't look into your citations or review the images. I focused mostly on language, as you asked. In general, this article's use of English is great and reads just fine to this native American English speaker, despite your disclaimer about your lack of faith in your own ability to translate from German. I don't think the grammar in this article should hold you back from seeking GA or FA, especially after addressing these comments. I think the biggest roadblock to GA or FA would be what I see as a need to trim down and summarize more, which can be hard, especially if you find everything interesting yourself. Good luck! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might find Wikipedia:Summary style helpful. It mostly discusses splitting out lengthy article sections into new sections, which may not be appropriate here, but it also discusses a little bit the general idea that articles need to be concise and avoid being overly detailed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan Murphy, I very much appreciate your effort. I'll address the issues you listed later. Best regards, → «« Man77 »» 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Man77: are you still working on the above comments? If the above are complete, can you ping Dugan Murphy? If you are not actively working on this article at the moment, can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'll be working through the list above some time in the foreseeable future, but at this very moment I am busy elsewhere. I'd be happy to get further feedback, but if procedures suggest this PR to be closed, please go ahead. → «« Man77 »» 16:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this PR because it's not being actively worked on and we don't want PRs open indefinitely. Once you address the above comments you can open a new PR and ping Dugan Murphy for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]