Talk:Blue Mosque, Istanbul/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.	Per WP:RGA, the article have serious issues with sources. Precisely the main source is travel agency website. On top of this, there is probably a serious issue with close paraphrasing or copyright violation because significant portions of the text are simply copied from this agency's website. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any errors or text that needs improvement mate? elmasmelih 09:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just began reviewing this article. The review will be completed within one week and my findings will be presented here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

General remarks

Source - I am concerned about sources used in this article, in particular about http://www.bluemosque.co/. Here is what concerns me:

• Extensive use - It is used a dozen times in this article (I think more than all other sources together).
• The quality - If this source would be some high quality scholarly source it would not be an issue here. But it is actually website of travel agency. If I am not wrong, this kind of source does not meet wp:rs standards, especially for such extensive usage.
• Duplication - Significant part of the text of the article is copied from the above mentioned website (link1 to duplicate detection search results and link2).

I would like to hear opinion of nominator (Elmasmelih) about my above remarks before I decide if this article should be failed without further review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns mate. How long will you give me to fix these issues? elmasmelih 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I respect and admire your intention to improve the quality of this article, but I am afraid it has too big problems with sourcing. If my concerns about copyright violations are justified, and I think they are, I think it is better to follow WP:RGA which says "If at any time you find significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations the article can also be failed without further review." It will take a lot of efforts to resolve this issues, but if you believe you can do it within reasonable period of time I will put this review on hold. If you are uncertain, it is maybe best to renominate this article once its sourcing issues are resolved. Thoughts?
• A few additional pointers: The lede does not summarize the text of the article and should be expanded. I think that undue weight is given to Pope's visit. It is probably better not to dedicate whole section to it, but to have section for all notable visitors, including Pope, Turksih president, American president....--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)