Talk:Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Improve the non-free use rationale of the poster with this template.
• Don't use small font in the infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT.
• Resolve the issue with the "[pronunciation?]" tag in the first sentence.
• "TV series" → "television series"
• "was released" → "premiered"
• Try moving some references here to #Production per MOS:TVLEAD.
• Add (2014–2019) after Diriliş: Ertuğrul.
• "why the TV series is gaining" → "why the television series gained"
• I'm not sure whether the first part of the sentence beginning with "One of the reasons" is necessary (I would remove it).
• The second mention of Emre Konuk should just be Konuk.

Synopsis and cast

• These sections look great.

Episodes

• The article titled "List of Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu episodes" should not exist [yet]. Merge it back into this article per MOS:TVSPLIT, which states that "it would take between 50 and 60 episodes to warrant separating those summaries off the main page to an List of Episodes page."
• After doing so, add episode summaries for every episode that has aired so far (in your own words).

Production

• I don't believe the quote block template is necessary, so I suggest adding it instead to the end of the sentence.
• "show. In which, Gülsoy said" → "show, in which Gülsoy said"
• "casted" → "cast"
• Remove "skilfully" (not a neutral word).

Reception

• Add a "Critical response" header/subsection.
• Expand this section with the help of WP:RECEPTION.
• "gaining popularity for the casting of famous actors" is trivial. Most shows get popular due to the actors in them so it's not that important.
• Don't use small font in the table per MOS:SMALLFONT.

References

• Archive all archivable sources (use this tool first and then try adding them manually).
• I'm not sure whether "fav10" is a reliable source, so I would suggest finding replacements.
• A lot of sources are missing authors/websites/dates so try retrieving that information.
• In the "|website=" parameter, try finding an official title instead of inserting an actual link (ex. www.gazetevatan.com → Gazete Vatan)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• Some Dude From North Carolina, firstly, I don't know where to comment so please move this to the appropriate area if necessary. I can't find much information at all for a critical response section. I checked almost every website (Hürriyet, Sözcü, etc.) but they're either plot summaries or an actor's (or the person a character is historically based on) biography. Is this section absolutely necessary? Limorina (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Limorina: The subsection is necessary, but what you have now is fine. Just add a header and take care of the rest of my suggestions and/or add comments. When you do, ping me again so I can take a look at your progress. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, I've done most of the things you have told me to do. I just have to date the citations. It's a bit hard trying to find plot summaries and I don't know if I can do it in two days. The author information for the citations is pretty unclear too for some of them. Limorina (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Limorina: No worries! Since most of my suggestions have been already been addressed, I am passing the article (just try to remove references from the lead already mentioned in other sections per MOS:LEAD). Great work! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)