Talk:Deportation of the Crimean Tatars/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this review in a few days auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've looked through the first couple of sections. this article will need work on grammar and "flow"....it seems to jump around, even within paragraphs, between different time periods. It would be good to define "partisans"--were these Soviet partisans, Crimean partisans, Communist, anticommunist? Why did the Soviets deport Tartars who were communists? Or didn't it matter? Was the defining feature Tartar, Muslim, or...something else?
Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Y Done. I clarified the "Background" section, to place the events chronologically and avoid some events "jumping around" within the paragraphs. The partisans were Soviet partisans, and they were linked. The entire Crimean Tatar population was deported, without exception - it didn't matter that they were communists. Interpretations of this decision are given later, in the "Modern views and legacy" section. --Seiya (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi auntieruth, I haven't seen this review, so I apologize for such a late reply. Please, give me a couple of days to check everything and sort things out. Then I will return with a reply.--Seiya (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Seiya, much better. I went through the rest and made some minor tweaks. Please look it through again, and let me know when you're done! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Great edits in the article, thanks. As far as I'm concerned, it is done, but I still have to leave it up to you. If you have any further comments, or detected any other issues, let me know and I will try to correct them.--Seiya (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

It looks good. Seiya, if you plan to take it further in the review process, it should have a serious copy editing from the Guild. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)