Talk:Ghazanchetsots Cathedral/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The page includes the full text of an inscription in the cathedral. Is the full text necessary?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The citation style is a mix of Shortened Footnote and Template citation styles. I'm okay with that... although I kind of wish that the Black Garden citations were all to the same edition of the work (the 2013 edition is cited; the same quote is on pg. 189 of the 2003 version). However I'm kind of torn because the Google Book citation for the 2013 version is definitely more convenient. Up to you if you want to change it.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I had to take the Armenian and print sources on good faith, though I did check the Black Garden citations. I checked the other citations. Can you tell me more about the last source in the Bibliography, "Shushi: The City of Tragic Fate"? Do you believe it is reliable?
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"in the 1940s it was used as a granary" - close paraphrasing; please change. I didn't find other problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Most of the sources are Armenian, but that's expected because the article is about an Armenian Cathedral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image [:File:Շուշիի զինանշանը.png] is listed as the original work of the uploader, but the caption in the page states that "coat of arms of Armenian-administered Shushi". It seems unlikely that the uploader was the original artist. Thoughts? thanks for correcting the copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for those few things I mentioned. I'll be away from Wikipedia after the 14th, so I may not reply until January 3rd. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Comments full text of an inscription you may be right that the full text of the inscription should not be included in the article, but one thing to note is that it is the only inscription on the church. This might make it significant. Shushi: The City of Tragic Fate Yes, I do think the source is reliable. It is published by a well-known publishing house in Armenia and is edited by the former foreign minister. The chapter cited is by Shahen Mkrtchian who wrote a seminal book on the architectural monuments of Karabakh in the Soviet period. Երևանցի talk 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC) close paraphrasing reworded File:Շուշիի զինանշանը.png Yes, it belongs to the government of Karabakh. Corrected. Non-reviewer comment: The Gallery section contains a completely indiscriminate WP:IG. Based on the captions, one illustrates early 20th century history, four of them in the 21th century (the text mentions no changes being made between 2007 and 2015, so why we should see what it looks like in slightly different weather conditions at slightly different times of the year is unclear), two focus on specific architectural features (for which we have an appropriate section in the article), and one has no caption at all so its purpose remains a mystery. In sum, the Gallery is indiscriminate. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Agreed. I've removed the gallery section altogether. --Երևանցի talk 09:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC) You've addressed all my concerns and I believe the page passes GA criteria. Thanks for writing about this interesting topic! Also, sorry that I forgot to change the page's template to "on hold." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)