Talk:Janissary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, the lead should be around three paragraphs, and should summarize the whole article without including information that is unique (not found in the body of the article).
   • I'm not sure what the summary in the infobox is for...the infobox should be easily digested bits of information (statistics, etc), while summaries are left to the lead.
   • Some redundant information/headings. For example, there is the heading "Recruitment, training and status" and the heading "Training".
   • The organization is rather...strange. The history sections and the technical specification sections (recruitment, training, equipment, etc) seem all mixed together. I think a good deal of thought should be given to the organization of this article, so that the reader has a coherent story to follow.
   • Because of the issues with referencing and organization, I did not do a thorough prose check.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The largest problem (and the main reason for the failure of this GAN) is the lack of referencing. There are entire sections missing references, including statistics, opinions and potentially controversial information. Because of the lack of referencing, it is hard to see if there is original research.
   • Two citation needed tags - these should have been fixed before the article was nominated for GAN, especially given that the one was placed almost four years ago.
   • What makes ref #11 (The Janissaries and the Ottoman Armed forces) a reliable source?
   • Ref #5 (Encyclopædia Britannica. Eleventh Edition) needs additional information - what volume? what article?
   • Ref #23 (See "Janissary music," New Grove Online) needs additional information - what is this? A book? A webpage? An encyclopedia?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • It appears to cover the major aspects, but due to the other problems I did not do a check for focus.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • I did not check this.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Ataturk Janissary.jpg needs additional information - the licensing is for author death + 70 years, but there is nothing showing who the author is or that he died more than 70 years ago.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am unfortunately going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are significant issues with referencing and organization that preclude it from being of GA status at this time. I see that the nominating editor has no edits to the article or its talk page besides the nominating edit, and I would like to suggest that they take some time to work on the article with the criteria in mind. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)