Talk:Chakh Akhriev/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Assessment

Well-written

• the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
  •  Comment: This is not a requirement for GA status, just my own suggestion: Per MOS:SURNAME, After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. The article consistently refers to Akhriev with his personal name, Chakh, which is something to change if you aim for FA status in the future.
• it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation clock
  •  Comment: I would merge the "background" and "childhood" sections into an "early life" section, and probably rename the "early collecting period" section to something like "Ethnography career", as that is clearer to the reader. The "critical reception" and "legacy" sections could be merged as well, and the "works" section moved to the end of the article for ease of reading.

Verifiable with no original research

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Y
• 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) clock
  •  Comment: In general the sourcing looks alright; I can't read most of it but my spotchecks using machine translation show good text-source integrity. A lot of the sources are Ingushetia-based newspapers, which I'm not confident in the neutrality of; it may be better to replace citations to Serdalo and Ingushetia with more academic citations where possible. There are several citations in the "sources" section that are not actually cited inline in the text: Akhrieva 1968, Dakhkilgov 1975, Dzarakhova 2010, and Yandarov 1968 - these could probably be used to fill out the article a little more, or even put into a "further reading" section.
• it contains no original research Y
• it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Y

Broad in its coverage

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic Y
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

•  Comment: It may lean a little towards eulogizing in the "critical reception" section, but since the quoted people are notable (have Russian articles), their perspectives on Akhriev may be as well. Let me know what you think!

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Y
• media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Y

@WikiEditor1234567123 Hi! I've completed my initial review. I'll continue looking over the article in case I notice anything else or have any other suggestions. Thanks for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 06:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I've fixed most of the issues. I don't think there's any problem with using Serdalo and Ingushetia newspaper articles as they're not only the most reliable newspaper of Ingushetia, but also those 2 articles are written by Zeinep Dzarakhova, an ethnographer and a doctor of historical sciences. Regarding Dakhkilgov 1975 and Yandarov 1968, I added these sources because I wanted to make a section about Akhriev's views, but had never the time to do that. What do you think, should I make that section? And thanks for beginning the review! Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 10:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Great to know about the newspapers - then I definitely have no issue with the use of those. I think a section about Akhriev's views would be great! It would flesh out the article just a bit more. Great work! :) sawyer * he/they * talk 01:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made the section, see here. Are there any more issues with the article? Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 09:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Congrats :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.