Talk:Etchmiadzin Cathedral/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Yes, and see below
	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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.
	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.	Resolved
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	An excellent article

Commentary

Thanks for your edits to this article, and of any other editors. This is wonderful to read and I sincerely hope that you take your editing gloves to other articles! This article is well-illustrated and appears to be well-sourced (although I will complete a more thorough check shortly). This article will almost certainly be promoted to GA. I have a few comments below:--LT910001 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• This article is well-illustrated by many wonderful images. Two of these have tags: [1] and [2]

 Fixed

• I feel for clarity, the first sentence of the 'foundation sentence' could be set as "The cathedral was built near the royal palace in the Armenian capital city of Vagharshapat between 301 and 303.[24][25][26] " to provide this historical context first, and then the tradition. This isn't a requirement of the GA review.

I agree.  Done

• One area I feel could be standardised how names are presented in this article. I recently reviewed China, and there is a useful system of tags for presenting names here (Template:lang) that could be used to standardise the names and pronounciations presented in this article. For example, (Russian: Москва́, Moskva).

 Question: So should I replace the phonetic script (or however it's called) to Ēǰmiatsni mayr tačar ?

Yes, I feel it would improve the article to separate the name in native language and native script from the transliterated name, and make it clear which is which. As it is, it is the native name but not in the native script, with the equivalent English name nearby.

I agree. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not appear to be any problems with sources. Will await comment on the above issues; please feel free to take several days, given that this is the festive season in many countries. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and thank you for the kind words.--Երևանցի ^talk 03:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels! LT910001 (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)