Wikipedia:Peer review/Turkey/archive3

Turkey

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is delisted and i wanna list it again.

Thanks, kazekagetr 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you would like to improve this important article. Be careful with controversial edits. I think a lot of non-controversial work is needed to deal with the "update section" tags and any other tags in the article. Not sure the captions of the pics of the ancient library and theatre should also have info on other buildings. Also some information should be moved into the main articles and summarized: for example the "economic history" section is too long and the "infrastructure" section is rather too precise (65,623 kilometres of road! they can distinguish asphalted from dirt or track or path to 3km?) I think. Compare with featured articles about countries like Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, India and Japan. Then you could nominate it as a good article. İyi çalışmalar. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, leaving some comments with the WP:GACR in mind.

1a: On the whole, the prose is well-written. Nothing egregious sticks out, although I'm sure it will continue to be tightened as editing moves forward.

1b: The current article does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the article, but from this article of eight main sections, one section (History) takes up two of the four lead paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is that if it's important enough for its own header or subheader, it's important enough for a mention in the lead. There is also much information that seems to be undue. For example, details of a 2019 EU vote seems extremely minor for a four paragraph summary of the entire article. The lead should also not contain any information that is not in the article. (I would extend this to the infobox as much as possible as well.) However, the current lead is filled with references not used anywhere else in the article, suggesting that the information is not present elsewhere in the article. An ideal lead might contain no references at all, as all information is easily verified through sources in the main text that expand on whatever is in the short lead.

1b: On layout, there are a few short paragraphs and short subsections that should be merged with other paragraphs/sections.

2: In general the references seem well formatted and to overall be reliable. There are a couple of sources I think could be augmented or replaced (eg. "Madde 2", biblehub.com), but the overall picture looks good. Some parts of the text suffer a common problem of having ill-defined and sourceless lists. This occurs a few times throughout the Culture section.

3a: The article is certainly broad, but as noted before areas like the lead are not.

3b: This article is far to long, not meeting WP:SUMMARYSTYLE or WP:SIZE. It's readable prose is 101kB, which is above the absolute maximum length. As a crude analogy, the table of contents is longer than my computer screen. Ideally the article should contain 40-60kB of prose. As this is a very high level article, there is no lack of sub-articles that a reader can visit to learn more about a specific topic, meaning a smaller article is very doable. Don't forget that the entire article is summarised in just four paragraphs in the lead! Consider also the balance between sections. For example, as it stands the history section is significantly larger than every other section, despite having a proliferation of relevant sub-articles. Furthermore, some other sections also devote much of their text to history, which may not be the most pertinent information for those sections (the Economy section has its own history sub-section!).

4: Parts of this article should be carefully looked through for tone and clarity. For example, in the opening paragraph it states that 70-80% of citizens identify as Turkish, when all citizens are by definition Turkish (and the infobox uses Turkish as the demonym). The lead also contains a footnote just to discuss the current President's stance on the Armenian genocide. Such information is very relevant for the article, but it is hard to see how the footnote is more useful than actual text elsewhere in the article. Overall however, this article is commendably much more neutral and encyclopaedic than it otherwise could be, so clearly editors have already kept this in mind.

5: Article is currently fully locked due to an edit dispute, so work to be done on this!

6: While not an explicit criteria for GAN, this article has too many images. For example, despite the History section's already unduly long size, it still manages to have an endless series of photos down the right side, some causing WP:SANDWICHING with photos on the left side! Similar issues exist throughout the article. In general, sub-sections in country articles are often too short to contain more than one image. Furthermore, some images throughout this article have been given a hard-coded size, which should be avoided per WP:IMGSIZE.

Hope these comments are helpful, CMD (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)