Talk:Etchmiadzin Cathedral/GA1

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

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.

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: and


 * 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. ✅


 * 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, (Москва́, Moskva).
 * 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. -- Ե րևանցի 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.-- Ե րևանցի 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)