Talk:Albania–Turkey relations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Werónika (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the process of review. Please check back soon! Werónika (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werónika. Thank you for undertaking the review. Looking forward to working with you on the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Also Turkey and Albania are candidates for accession in the EU." Too many "alsos." "Both nations are predominantly Muslim and are both part of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.": Take out the second "both." "...through economic migration and early years of the Turkish republic through migration...." Too many "migrations." "Islam the official religion at that time" Should be "Islam, the official religion at that time,". "Due to... close ties, the relationship between the two countries has been labeled as "blood relations"". This is redundant. "During the Cold War era, relations between the two sides were suspended completely.... During the Cold War however...." This is repetitive. "During the Cold War however" Should be "During the Cold War, however,". "Before that relations were downgraded" Should be "Before that, relations were downgraded"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"the relationship between the two countries has been labeled as "blood relations"" Weasel words. "During the Cold War however": Editorializing. Headings should be in sentence style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	"Also Turkey and Albania are candidates for accession in the EU." No source provided. "many still feel a connection to Albania." No source provided.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some information is unsourced, but all citations provided seem to be from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	"on the other hand Turkey contains 5-6 million Albanians" Last source (Yenigun 2009) doesn't quite back you up—it provides a figure of 5–6 million.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"and contributed heavily to the Ottoman empire and wider Muslim world" How did they contribute? "relations were downgraded in 1948 as a result of Turkish protest at complete Communist takeover of Albania". Why did the Turks protest? Why did Albania experience a Communist takeover? "Cyprus question (1965)" What is the Cyprus question?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	You spend a lot of time in the intro talking about the historical relationship between Albania and the Ottoman Empire, but just one sentence in the body.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	You describe Albania–Turkey relations in an overly positive tone, such as military and diplomatic cooperation. While you describe some concerns held by Serbs or Greeks, you relegate them to only a single paragraph. Phrases like "Albanians have appreciated the efforts of Turkish Muslim organisations" also violate NPOV, because we don't hear from those who are opposed or have concerns about these organisations.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm sorry, but after reading the intro and the first body paragraph, I'm going to have to quick-fail this because it's nowhere near meeting GA criteria. The grammar (especially your usage of commas, repetition of words, and sentence structure) needs a lot of work; I would highly recommend having this article copyedited at the Guild of Copy Editors WikiProject. Doing so will also help you avoid problematic words that also interfere with NPOV. The coverage and breadth of this article are also lacking. You provide a lot of historical context about the Ottoman Empire in the lead (most of which is unsourced), but then you don't discuss it in further detail in the body. Ultimately, this is a Wikipedia article about modern-day Albania–Turkey relations, so you should keep this information to a minimum. A lot of the wording is also very vague; you talk a lot about "cooperation" and "ties" which could really mean anything. And lastly, please provide more reliable citations, ones that do not contradict what you actually say. Thank you for your hard work, and feel free to leave a comment on my talkpage or on this GA Review if you have any further comments.