The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 14:12, 23 May 2012 [1].

Azerbaijani people[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: User talk:Khoikhoi, User talk:Parishan, User talk:Lysozym, User talk:Grandmaster, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups; User:Tombseye inactive

I need help on this article. It fails criteria 1a, 1c, 2 and 3. As of this version:

It is unclear whether concerns over 1d (bias) and 1e (stability), are resolved.[4][5] DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead composite image issue is easy to solve. A year ago, there was a nice fair-use image above the infobox, which in my opinion, looked a lot better than a collection of barely visible images, where some, as it turns out now, even lack a fair use rationale. Parishan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That image is still in the article, below the infobox at the top of the "Part of a series" template. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the one who initially posted the notification to the talk page (back in late December), and unfortunately nothing has been done to address the concerns I brought up in that notification. Besides the obvious (tagged) issues with dead links, citations needing page numbers and places needing references, there are also unreliable sources (some examples mentioned above by DrKiernan, but there are others), poorly/inconsistently formatted references and poor compliance with MOS (including issues with image sandwiching and quote formatting). Also agree with the prose and image licensing issues brought up by DrKiernan. Dana boomer (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—A bit of a problem with 3. The infobox is too thick due to the number of pictures. It probably should only have at most four columns. --Article editor (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced it by one column for the moment by removing the files with the least solid licensing information; it could be further trimmed by removing the next 5 least reliable files or 5 files with the least licensing information (missing sources; broken sources; etc). DrKiernan (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that looks a lot better - nice work! A few more thoughts:
  • What makes refs #4, 14 (LookLex) a HQRS?
  • What makes refs #58, 60 (Iran Chamber Society) a HQRS? Also, the publisher should be formatted consistently between these two.
  • Ref #35 is supposedly to Encyclopedia Iranica, but upon going to the reference it's a completely different website (and in a different language, so I don't know who the publisher is/what the content is).
  • Refs need to be checked for consistent formatting. Some use a note:page number format (for example [6]:113[54]:285), while others include the page number in the note itself.
  • Image licensing needs to be checked more closely. For example, File:Azeri 1900.PNG uses a author life+70 tag, but the author is unknown, File:Sattar Khan.jpg has the same issue (tag based on author lifespan, but we don't know the author). I didn't check any of the images in the lead composite, and I am also not an image expert, so I may have missed things on the other images in the article.
  • I haven't taken a thorough look at prose yet, but from a quick glance it's looking a lot better. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look. I've just chopped those five sources: two can be replaced and three are just extra sources for statements already supported by other cites. The page numbers in the footnotes are for sources that are used once; whereas for sources used multiple times the page numbers are by the identifier. I don't know why this format was used, probably accident more than anything, but I just kept it the same. I think for Sattar Khan, we're using the second half of the license: 30 years after publication? (But there's no proof of publication either I guess..hmmn..I'll think on that.) I've changed the tag on Azeri 1900. DrKiernan (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for taking a bit to get back to this, and my apologies for putting my review up in pieces... I've had a read through the article and just have a few more comments:
  • The paragraph starting "Brief independence for northern Azerbaijan in 1918–1920..." could probably use a reference, just for safety's sake.
  • The paragraph starting "Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan have developed distinct institutions..." could use a reference.
  • Once these two things are taken care of, I think should article should be good to go. Prose looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again.
  • Cites added.
  • I've dismantled that section and merged it into the other sections that talk about Azeris on each side of the border. There was some repetition and the material is similar.
  • Close Comments addressed; tags cleared. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. The only further thing that I would suggest is to investigate the charge of non-neutrality in one sentence (see article history), but this is a very minor issue. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent edit warring and POV pushing on the article has made in unstable and again pushed it below FA quality. Because DrKiernan seems unwilling to continue working against this type of editing (and I don't blame him, I wouldn't want to either), the article needs to be moved to FARC and delisted. It is disappointing that so much work went into this article and then was disturbed with edit warring, undiscussed removals of sourced information, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality, sourcing, and prose. Though improvements were made in the review, recent instability and disputes have necessitated a move to FARC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No. What has changed between then and now that makes the previous article "more balanced"? DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, basically every bit of change! The new sources are all iffy. I really liked the original intro. It made all sides happy. Alas, those people who wrote the article and made it featured are not active anymore. Well, I guess that's Wikipedia. Pejman47 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More