Talk:Tong Yabghu Qaghan/GA1

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

I will do the GA Review on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article I see the seeds of a GA here but I feel that there is much that needs to be done to maintain its GA status. To start per WP:lead the lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, covering the major points within the article. The lead in this article does not meet this criteria. I find the use of quotes to be a bit excessive and not inline with WP:quote. Regarding the excessive nature of the quotes, the article is short to begin with, the quotes seem to be inserted to make the article seem longer. The fourth quote regarding taxation of the conquered Aghvania forces is an example of an unnecessary quote. The reader understands that the people were heavily taxed, what benefit does the quote provide except to support that assertion? The point of a quote is to either better explain what we cannot succinctly explain or to support what may be considered a controversial point. Neither of these exist to justify this particular quote. Regarding conforming to the MOS, quotes are generally not suppposed to be italicized, and we try to avoid large block quotes as it breaks up the flow of the article. The citation of the quotes and the lead into each quote are excellent but overall the use of four block quotes in an article of this length start to make it appear as though they were inserted to help bolster the length of the article rather than to actually add to the accuracy of the article. The map should probably be placed on the right with the rest of the images. I'll refer to WP:ACCESS regarding layout of the page.

Regarding the content I did not read much about Tong Yabghu's rise to power or how he died. Is there any information on these parts of his life? Also who succeeded him upon his death?

Your references are solid and appear to be credible, the format for the references is good. In conclusion I would say the primary issues are comprehensiveness, the quotations, and the lead. I will place the article on hold for a week with the hope that work can be done to bring it up to current GA standards. Thank you for your work and please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]