Talk:First Republic of Armenia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Four found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ...as well as Alexandropol and Echmiadzin which they wanted a railroad to be built to connect Kars and Julfa with Baku. What is this supposed to eman?
 * The Armenian and Georgian members of the Republic’s delegation began to stall. Which republic is this?
 * Nevertheless, it was forced to sue for negotiations at Treaty of Batum, which was signed in Batum on June 4, 1918.  "it"?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #3 leads just to a book listing. as the book is 125 pages long, we need page numbers for these cites.  As it is a US Congress document presumably it is available online somewhere?
 * As I cannot access the other references, I shall assume good faith.
 * Administration section is completely uncited.
 * Ref #15 - Strategics textbook, 9th grade is not accepatble as a reliable source.
 * Military section is uncited
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Military section is over detailed. A prose summary is all that is neccessary.  We don't need to know how many underpanst the army had!
 * The Geography section should be converted into prose with a description of the geography, rather than tables which add little to the understanding.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs a lot of qwork before it is worthy of GA status.
 * It needs a thorough copy-edit.
 * It needs fully referencing.
 * Page numbers for the US Congress document cites, also an online link if possible.
 * Better reference for the Military section.
 * Better referencing throughout.
 * When that has been done, take it to WP:Peer review and the then if you like renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Page numbers for the US Congress document cites, also an online link if possible.
 * Better reference for the Military section.
 * Better referencing throughout.
 * When that has been done, take it to WP:Peer review and the then if you like renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)