Wikipedia:Peer review/Azerbaijan/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to further improve it for later nomination for FAC. I would rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC, so additional feedback and recommendations are welcome. Thanks, Neftchi (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the previous review I made some changes. Added sources, merged lose sentences, removed images as they were sandwiching the text, merged the subheadlines of modern era into one. Also removed repeating and unrelated text.Neftchi (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Dana Boomer

Although it looks like you've done some good work on this article, there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done before it is of FA quality. Here are some thoughts:

  • Quite a few areas that still need references. There are currently entire subsections (i.e. Architecture) without references, as well as many places where statistics are given without references, such as: the second paragraph of the Transportation section, the entire Banking section and the entire Education section.
  • Education section, "According to Soviet data, 100 percent of males and females (ages nine to forty-nine) were literate in 1970." This is not referenced, and sounds more like propaganda than anything else. A very solid, high quality, third party source is going to be needed for this. Also, how does this compare to literacy rates today?
  • 17 dead links and 12 dab links (these can be found in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review page).
  • A mix of British and American spelling - defence/defense, recognise/recognize, neighbor/neighbour, etc. Needs to be standardized.
  • Still multiple places where text is sandwiched between images; this needs to be fixed as it is an MOS no-no.
  • Reference formatting needs significant work. All web references should have a title, publisher and access date at the very least - publication dates, authors and other information should be added if available. Some or all of this information is missing on many web references. Also, all books should be formatted consistently with each other, all journal articles, etc.
  • What makes ref #23 ( a reliable source?
  • Ref #40 is to another Wikipedia article - this is unacceptable.
  • Ref #59, what does "Citations are at Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic#First or second." mean?
  • Ref #85 (Paralumun) is not a reliable source. It also does not cover all of the information in this paragraph, or even all of the information just about the horse.
  • Ref #110 ( does not go to the page specified. Also, why is it a reliable source?
  • Ref #127 (Власти Азербайджана обеспокоены состоянием исторических памятников в Нагорном Карабахе); what is this?
  • What makes ref #133, 150 (Intute) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #134 ( a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #198 ( a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #215 ( a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #220 ( a reliable source?

The lack of consistent formatting and essential information in the references makes it difficult to check them fully for reliability. Also, remember that the FA criteria require high-quality reliable sources, not just reliable sources, so it's an even higher hurdle to jump. I haven't checked image licensing or prose, due to the other issues. At this point, the lack of sourcing in many areas and the dead links and unreliable sources in others are the biggest problem for this article, and the issues that will take the most work to fix. I will be watching this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dana and thanks for your review. Your feedback is very helpful, I appreciate it. Im going to answer your question one by one, that will keep things clear.
  • I added sources for the banking and education sectors. I also adjusted the text according to the new sources. I will also find sources for architecture and transportation chapters.
  • I also added a souce on the "Soviet data 100% Soviet data on 100 percent literacy". It is from "Glenn E. Curtis, ed. Azerbaijan: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995." [1]. For the 2009 literacy rate, I added a PDF source from the United Nations Development Programme on literacy in 2009, which is at 99.5% [2].
  • I fixed all the disambiguation links and will further work on the 17 dead links.
  • Which spelling do you recommend, American or English? I will adjust it accordingly.
  • Later on the day I will work on correcting sources according to CITE and remove all non-reliable sources. Neftchi (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed, removed and/or replaced all the unreliable references (#40-#220) Neftchi (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Fixed all dead links. Neftchi (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed from British to American spelling. Neftchi (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Further comments

Thanks for your work so far - for the most part it looks great. However, more work is needed:

  • Still some British spellings - neighbour, metre, criticise, -isation, etc. Please look through the entire article for these.
  • Still need work on ref formatting. For websites, the publisher is not the home domain of the website - it is the organization, company, government or person that is putting the information out there. For example, the publisher for ref #111 is the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, not "". This needs to be changed on pretty much all of the web references. Other websites are still completely missing publishers. Some references still have nothing but a website - no access date, publisher, etc.
  • Make sure you're not giving ref titles in all capital letters, like currently in ref #114. Even if the source gives the title all in caps, it should be changed to title case.
  • Standardize formatting of refs to the same publication. For example, refs #24 and 25 are both to Encyclopedia Iranica, but are formatted completely differently.
  • There are books given in the references with no author, publisher, isbn or other vital information.
  • Some of the sources that have been added or were previously in the article are not reliable:
  • What makes ref #81 ( reliable? Also, need a cite for the first and last sentences of the paragraph that this is in.
  • What makes ref #179 ( a reliable source?
  • Still have a reference to (#191)
  • Serious prose work needed. One example, pulled at random: "These dances differ from other dances with its quick temp and optimism. And this talks about nation’s braveness." These...its - singular plural agreement. ...Talks about nation's braveness - ungrammatical.
  • Still areas needing additional refs - Folk dance, Cuisine, Transportation, Biodiversity, Landscape, etc. Basically, when you start using words like distinctive, unique, famous or giving statistics, you have to have references.
  • Still text sandwiched between images in some places.

Please take the above comments as examples - I again found them on a brief sweep of the article. Go through every ref and make sure it is reliable and the formatting is correct. Go through every section to find places that need references. Go through every sentence to find prose and MOS errors. As you want to take this to FAC, I would suggest going to the nomination page and reading through the nominations, to see what reviewers are looking for, and the level of work that is needed. Although I believe that this article can become a FA in the future, it has a long way to go before it gets there. Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)