Talk:Azerbaijanis in Georgia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing... Accedie^{talk to me} 03

59, 25 November 2012 (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.	I cleaned up some minor issues; it could probably use a bit more polishing (some of the constructions are a little awkward, probably resulting from translation/non-native speaker), but it's generally solidly written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead should be expanded to include some of the historical and demographic details, which are very well covered in the body.
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.	I would strongly suggest more English language sources. Quite a few books come up in a Google search for Azerbaijanis in Georgia.
	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).	Providing page numbers for non-English sources would be great – I'm having a hard time finding the relevant cited facts in some of the Russian sources like this one. Given the very specific statistics and numbers that are presented, it's important to be equally precise with citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spot checks are okay on the sources I can read; AGF on the ones I can't, but again, more sources in English would be preferable for verification.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, broad and well covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good summarizing of lots of history and dense material. Good use of tables, too!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks okay to me.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars that I can see.
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.	All good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article looks quite good. However, I'm concerned about the sourcing issues detailed above. Therefore, I'm not passing at this time.