Wikipedia:Peer review/Fethullah Gülen/archive2

Fethullah Gülen edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, the comments from others will helpfully help for the improvement of the article. Thanks, Philscirel (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, it's too early for this. WP:Peer review is for stable articles, and this is not the case here. The right venue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are new to WP and I suggest you stick around and get some edits under your belt first. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

This article needs a copyedit to improve the writing. For example, is his name "Gülen" or "Gulen" (both spellings are used)? Before that is done, I would resolve some of the other issues mentioned next.
References do not meet Wikipedia standards in several ways: Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase without a space. The also need to be in order (so [1][2][3], not [2][1][3]. The refs do not give enough information, for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Article needs more references, for example the 60 books are unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I also note that many of the refs seem to be from Gulen or his organization, it is better to use as many independent, third party sources as possible.
The lead should have an image at upper right (perhaps the seal or logo or flag of the Gelenist movement or a picture of Gulen himself). Any chance for some more (free) images?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the useful comments. i made some modification in the line of your suggestions, and working on it for a better quality, although maybe slowly. i will consult you when all the above is met. best. Philscirel (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that one third of the references belong to Zaman which is an offical newspaper of the Gulen Movement. Last time I counted 31 of 91 references in this article quotes from Zaman and around 20 references quotes from Gulen's offical web site, in total this makes more fifty percent of citiations from non-neutral sources. This casts serious doubt to the article's neutrality. Also nowhere in the article Zaman's connection with Gulen movement mentioned. In english speaking world, it's a common ethical standard to have disclaimers if the media publishinganything about their alleged shareholders. For example, whenever MSNBC.com published an article about Bill Gates, they always provide a disclaimer reminding readers that Bill Gates is a shareholder in MSNBC.

I suggest, at the end of the "Gulen Movement" section, it would be proper to add a new paragraph describing the movements media outlets including Zaman, Today's Zaman, Sunday's Zaman, Aksiyon, Bugun, Samanyolu, Star etc.

(AA 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

the sources from zaman, the most-selling newspaper, is the correct information. most of the other newspapers are under the influence of Ergenekon gangs and is claimed behind the accusations about gulen. their position to the article is no way better than zaman. besides, there are not many Turkish newspapers cover the related information in English. Philscirel (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem is to maintain NPOV and Zaman is the worst source to use as reference, since it's Gulen unoffical newspaper. In the entire history of Zaman, there is not even a single sentence published slighly critizising Gulen. Besides this article is about Gulen, not Ergenekon. There is no connection with Ergenkon and Gulen. You can not label all other newspapers under the influence. If there is a newspaper under influence, it's Zaman itself. By the way Zaman is not the only one publishing english, there is Turkish Daily News and Hurriyet is among many others. (Just a correction, Zaman is the most distributed newspaper in Turkey, not the most-selling, since it's widely distributed freely, even I receive free copies left to my apartment.) (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

This article has not a shred of neutrality and this is the third time in one month that Philscirel (talk · contribs) has asked for PR, when the article is nowhere near stability. Maybe he should find something else to do. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes specific changes following my peer review - it should help the discussion re: NPOV and general readibility Jk54 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted your edits. the article is worked for weeks and word by word. you deleted 40 links from the article. NPOV is not deletion of the well-documented information. please discuss first. Philscirel (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has serious problems with NPOV. I think -besides deleting 40 links-, the any references to Gulen organizations should also be removed. Clerance should start from the one third of the references pointing Zaman, other one third is pointing to Gulen's own home page, so in entire wikipedia history, NPOV never been damaged so much (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))