![]() | Azerbaijanis in Georgia was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 2, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Accedie ( talk · contribs) 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. |
This picture has been interpreted here by the uploader as "Azerbaijani merchants in Tbilisi". [1] Yet when I go to the actual source page as given on the pictures' description, it simply says "Muslim Sellers of Carpets 1900s" (!) [2] Since when does Muslim equal Azerbaijani? Am I missing something? At the same time, when I google "Persian merchants in Tbilisi", I get numerous links that lead us to the same picture with the description, (which is easily possible, given the numer of Iranians in Tiflis during those times), but not a single one hit that leads me to this very same picture when I enter "Azeri merchants in Tbilisi", unless it being some mirror site of Wikipedia.
WP:OR or misinterpretation? Or am I wrong? Any (useful) opinion is valued. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 10:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What's the rationale for forcing the word "Azeri" in places that don't need its use? There are links that have specifically been made [[Azerbaijani language|Azeri language]] as if "Azerbaijani" isn't a correct terminology. Every sentence repeats the word "Azeri" which becomes really repetitive, so at least changing it in some places like I tried would solve the problem. But Parishan seems to oppose this and imposes a false translation on things such as the "Azerbaijani Cultural Centre", which is called "Музей азербайджанской культуры", not "Музей азерэинской культуры". Not to mention the fact that a large chunk of Azerbaijanis finds the term "Azeri" offensive. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 20:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Azerbaijanis in Georgia was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 2, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Accedie ( talk · contribs) 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. |
This picture has been interpreted here by the uploader as "Azerbaijani merchants in Tbilisi". [1] Yet when I go to the actual source page as given on the pictures' description, it simply says "Muslim Sellers of Carpets 1900s" (!) [2] Since when does Muslim equal Azerbaijani? Am I missing something? At the same time, when I google "Persian merchants in Tbilisi", I get numerous links that lead us to the same picture with the description, (which is easily possible, given the numer of Iranians in Tiflis during those times), but not a single one hit that leads me to this very same picture when I enter "Azeri merchants in Tbilisi", unless it being some mirror site of Wikipedia.
WP:OR or misinterpretation? Or am I wrong? Any (useful) opinion is valued. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 10:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What's the rationale for forcing the word "Azeri" in places that don't need its use? There are links that have specifically been made [[Azerbaijani language|Azeri language]] as if "Azerbaijani" isn't a correct terminology. Every sentence repeats the word "Azeri" which becomes really repetitive, so at least changing it in some places like I tried would solve the problem. But Parishan seems to oppose this and imposes a false translation on things such as the "Azerbaijani Cultural Centre", which is called "Музей азербайджанской культуры", not "Музей азерэинской культуры". Not to mention the fact that a large chunk of Azerbaijanis finds the term "Azeri" offensive. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 20:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)