Talk:2010 Turkish constitutional referendum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
First paragraph of background section is unsourced, followed by a citation needed tag in the "Economic and social rights" section, an unsourced paragraph in the "Individual freedoms" section, an unsourced paragraph in the "Judicial reforms" section, and in that same section, another citation needed tag. The "Changes by article" depends on a primary source translation followed by another unsourced paragraph in the "Voting in parliament" section. The "Annulment of the package" section has two unsourced paragraphs, and the "Aftermath" section has one unsourced paragraph. Much of the unsourced material involves living people, controversial political statements, and statistics. This article does not currently meet the GA criteria. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article currently fails sourcing criteria. Please have the relevant WikiProjects peer review it, fix the problem, and then re-nominate it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]