Talk:Varagavank/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Will review within a couple of days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Reviewing now, sorry for the delay.

Lede

• Remove the sources, 10 is excess anyway.

 Done

• The monastery was "one of the great monastic centres of the Armenian church"[9] and "the richest and most celebrated monastery of the Lake Van area".[5] -according to whom

 Done

• "Significant part..." why is that last part quoted? Should be written in your own words.

 Done

Foundation and medieval period

• Delink True Cross per OVERLINK bleh, just did this...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• " All the churches were destroyed, except the St. Hovhannes Church which had an iron door and where the monks hid. " -the monk hid in the iron door itself? Needs rewording here.

 Done by Casliber

Modern period

• "In 1651 Suleyman, the prince of Hoşap Castle, invaded the monastery, robbed the palace, manuscripts, treasures and the Holy Cross, which was later repurchased and made it part of the Tiramayr Church of Van in 1655." what was later repurchased, the Cross? New sentence after Holy Cross with "The cross was later repurchased" might do.

I've reworded, but you might look at it again anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

19th century

• Delink Vardapet in second instance

 Done

• effectively independent and only a subordinate of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople --> would flow more naturally as " effectively independent and subordinate only to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople" "

 Done

Destruction

• You should probably attribute the quote in the last sentence

what quote?

Architecture

• The description is really lacking I think. The article tells me little about it architecturally or its frescoes etc. Is there really nothing more on it?

Current

• Never begin a paragraph let alone a new section with a quote!

 Done by Casliber

Sources

Place all book sources in bibliography and use footnotes for pages. You can draw the sources up again here.

I was expecting to pass this pretty soon, but I think it's still a little rough around the edges and the sourcing needs to be made consistent. In some places the dates recited are a bit repetitive and almost in note form. Would benefit from a further copy edit and ideally some expansion of architecture before I'm ready to pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is much like Dr Blofeld's - good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Should add that the other thing that needs to happen is direct quotes converted to prose. I have done a couple and will do some more as I suspect as a native English-speaker I can do this more readily than the nominator. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Are you going to respond here? I'll leave this for a few more days but I'm afraid I'll have to fail it if it isn't improved by then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I gather there's nothing more available documenting its architecture? The prose seems to have much improved now anyway. Can you let me know if you can find anything before we proceed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• " Archbishop Bardughimeos Shushanetsi renovated the monastery in the mid 170s." -1670s or 1770s?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this nomination, because the article is not ready to be classified as a good article. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

We're just about OK I think Yerevantsi since the copyediting of it by Eric and Casliber, but when I ask a question about things like architecture I'd really appreciate an adequate response from you as well as some sort of appreciation that I've spent the time reviewing it. I'll take for granted that nothing more can be found about it architecturally. This looks OK for GA now I believe, thanks for bearing with me on this, you've already waited long enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)