Talk:Oil in Turkey/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: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is clear and concise, easily conveying the importance of oil and impacts of oil in turkey

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

   The article complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   All citations are verifiable

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Inline citations correctly point to each source and back up the accompanying claims

   c. (OR):

   All claims are backed up by non-original sources

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyright infringements seen

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article covers a variety of aspects relating to the topic

@DimensionalFusion: Have added a bit - if more needed please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's great. Thanks DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (focused):

   The article does not go into unnecessary detail on each aspect.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No opinions are given undue weight within the article

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring as far as I can see

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Pictures are used to illustrate releveant points in the article

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Media are relevant to the point being discussed in the article

5. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Article is broad in converage, and I belive it meets GA requirements

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.