Talk:Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * At first glance, this article looks more like a list, which would be ineligible for promotion to GA status. You may want to consider nominating it at Featured lists. If you would rather it be a GA, then it would help for some of the paragraphs and other sections to be fleshed out and expanded.


 * More comments will follow tomorrow. --1ST7 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a background section?
 * "clergymen, physicians, editors, journalists, lawyers, teachers, politicians, etc." Please change "etc." to "and others".
 * "The differences in number may be explained by the uncertainties of the police as they imprisoned people with the same names." This sentence needs a citation and attribution.
 * The last two sentences under "Holding centers" need a citation.
 * "Only ten (or thirteen) deportees of this group were granted permission to turn back to the capital from Ayaş." Please provide more explanation for the differences in number.
 * "About 150 political prisoners were detained in Ayaş, about 150 intellectual prisoners in Çankırı." The italics are unnecessary.
 * In the second sentence under "Court marshal", lieutenants does not need to be in italics.
 * In the same section, the last two sentences in both paragraphs need citations.
 * The last two paragraphs in the "Release" section need citations.
 * The "Survivors" section needs citations.
 * I'll try to review the list of notable deportees tomorrow. --1ST7 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review for the list: I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address these things. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All names seem to have the Armenian script underneath the English except for "Azarik", "Dr. Nakulian", "Panaghogh", "Hagop Tekeyan", and "Reverend Grigorian". Please add the script for those too so the style will be consistent.
 * The notes section for Zareh Bardizbanian has an extra reference bracket . Please remove it.
 * "Set free as he was Bulgarian national and went back to Sofia." Please add an "a" before Bulgarian and add a link to Sofia.
 * In cases where the dates or locations are uncertain, question marks are used with parentheses in some parts (?) while others just have the question mark by itself. Please make the style consistent.
 * This phrase is a little awkward: "Until the deportees of Ayaş came to know about The 20 Hunchakian gallows of 15 June 1915 they weren't realising the earnest of their situation." The "T" in "The" should be lowercase. Also, please change "earnest" to "severity".
 * Please capitalize the first letter of the first word in the "Notes" section for "Marzbed".
 * In the "Notes" section of "Yeghia Sughikian", "30'000" should be "30,000".


 * Thanks for the review. I started fixing the minor stuff. But can you please give me a little more than a week for the major stuff? Like the adding of sources and etc.? Since I didn't create the article, it's going to be hard for me to find those sources. I wouldn't want to retrieve the wrong sources either. So if more time could be granted, I would greatly appreciate it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sure, I can extend the holding period. Is two weeks alright? Or three? --1ST7 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to do. So I'd like three weeks. Most likely, I'll finish before then though. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , I expanded a bit on the survivors section and included the relevant refs for it. All other small problems I have resolved already. In terms of the sourcing, the reason why it's not sourced (i.e. end of court martials section or release section) is because those are already describe in detail in the case by case listing of the deportee. For example, see Kherbekian in the list. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work on the improvements. There's just a few things that need to be sorted out before this can pass as a GA. "Baghdasar Serkisian" still needs the Armenian script under his name (he's down towards the bottom of the table, and listed as a survivor). The references are still needed, as the list is a separate section and harder to navigate. You can just use the system to link the citations. There doesn't appear to be any copyright violations in the article. The FL vs. GA issue is still unresolved. The article is listed as a normal article, not a list, but the list part makes up a substantial portion of the page. What are your thoughts on this issue? I'm considering seeking another opinion on this, and I'd like to double check the prose before passing the article. --1ST7 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Added the necessary refs and added Baghdasar's name. You are free to ask for a third opinion. I believe that there is enough prose to consider this a GA article. However, I would like to double check myself as well. As far as I can see, some articles are being nominated for FL that are currently at a GA status. See here. I don't see why the article should be picking one over the other. Anyways, maybe the FL community can help us. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested another opinion, and three other GA reviewers recommended taking this to FL. Please know that the reasons for this not being promoted are technical, and are not related to any quality issues. I encourage you to nominate this at Featured list candidates. As the FL criteria is a little higher than the GA criteria, you may want to get a peer review first. Thank you again for all the work you have put into this article. --1ST7 (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
I am quite concerned that I see no mention in the above review that any checking has been done for close paraphrasing. In the last GAN where 1ST7 reviewed a nomination by Proudbolsahye, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, there was no apparent checking for such issues, because shortly after being listed as a GA, a great many problems were found in this area (see Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey) over the course of a month, any of which should have halted the review in its tracks while they were being fixed, and all of which are violations of the good article criteria.

You might want to get a ruling now on whether this is a list or not. Frankly, it looks like one to me, and on the wrong side of the GA/FL divide, but someone with more experience should be found before the review is finalized. Maybe ask for a 2nd opinion?

Finally, the prose needs to be checked further, in the various notes and captions as well as the paragraphs up top. For example, Footnote 5 about the Kalfayans is problematic in a few ways, grammatically, including "mistakingly", which should be "mistakenly". Also, the "Release" section starts with the sentence "Any prisoners released came through the intercession of influential persons who they found through their own means." This sentence is unclear, and certainly not up to GA standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article wasn't created by me. I've actually only made minor copy-edits in this article. But yes, close paraphrasing should be checked out regardless. I'll fix the other issues you've raised as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually already checked for close paraphrasing with the Copyvio Detector, which showed no sign of any violations. --1ST7 (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Copyvio Detector is, for GA purposes, useless. (Also for DYK.) If that's what you used on the Confiscated Armenian properties article, I'm not surprised you didn't turn up anything. It might possibly find random sources that were copied from, if such existed, but for a useful test, run the Duplication Detector and compare the article against a reasonable number of the referenced English language sources in it. If there are many foreign-language sources, run some of them through Google translate and see if any of the resulting English looks similar to wording in the article. I've never gotten a hit from the Copyvio Detector, but on the same article have found a number of identical and near-identical phrases from one or more sources in Duplication Detector, and sometimes have found overly similar phrases between an article and Google translation of sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me that. I'll switch to the method you recommended from now on. --1ST7 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)