Talk:San Lazzaro degli Armeni/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

There are some comma errors in the establishment subheading of the Armenian Period section. The prose could be improved overall to balance readability with conciseness. There are missing commas, and sentences that need to be revised entirely like Mkhitar Sebastatsi had founded a Catholic order in Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, in 1701 that would later be bear his name.

The lede section could be improved. The last paragraph could be developed to more naturally summarize the main points of the article. The notable scholars section is not an embedded list, nor is it prose.

OR in the nationalism section - The source is about "national consciousness", it does not explicitly say "nationalism" linking these when it is not in the source is syn.
 * The concept of national consciousness is related to nationalism. Nationalism is in itself tied with national consciousness. It's not OR to put that source in the section about nationalism. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The coverage of the subject is good, covering history, notable scholars from the monastary, notable visitors, it discusses the library, paintings, museum, etc. However, there is one notable omission, a discussion of the architecture, and the architect - but GA criteria does not require completeness, so the article does satisfy this criteria.

The image layout needs improvement.
 * A little more elaboration wouldn't hurt.-- Ե րևանցի talk  15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The article needs significant work and would benefit from thorough copy-editing to improve the prose. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific in your comments by providing more detailed concerns and not abstract ones. -- Ե րևանցի talk  15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the issues have been fixed during the hold period, but I failed it because it still has numerous issues There are template brackets in the text. The Notable Resident Scholars section still has not been reworked into prose, just a series of unconnected paragraphs. Maybe more could be said about these scholars in this section. The Notable visitors section is very difficult to follow. Artistic depictions might be better as an image gallery then a list. The Role in Armenian History section does not really need to be broken up into subsections. The link density in the article is very high and this makes it difficult to read. This may be too much detail, or perhaps details like the paintings in the Church could be presented a different way, as a table, or an image gallery. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add comments here
Please add comments and extended discussion of the review here.

Re: national consciousness, it is OR unless that specific source discusses nationalism. The quote given for it does not. "National consciousness is related to nationalism, so this is suitable for a discussion about nationalism" is WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure what you mean by more detailed comments. I think the comments were pretty detailed, there is an entire section that is not written in prose, but is not an embedded list. that would later be bear his name Be bear his name? The article needs to be copy-edited for grammar and prose from start to finish. I don't think these comments were "abstract." If you mean the image layout, then I would say the article is currently too saturated with images for its length. Some of the images are very similar to one another. Maybe consider setting up an image gallery. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point of advice would be "Use foreign languages sparingly" and remember to italicize. This advice comes from WP:WBA. The article gives us two (unlinked) spellings for term - Mechitar or Mekhitar - in a parenthetical comment, instead of working the Mekhitarists link into the prose naturally. Another suggestion would be to consider using a columned list to format the foreigners who visited section. There does not seem to be much prose there, and this format would improve the link density. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the title of that specific section to "National consciousness and nationalism". It is not synthesis to have a basic knowledge of theese terms and see that they are highly intertwined. If you have a better idea, please propose it. -- Ե րևանցի talk  14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty good definition of what WP:SYNTH is, drawing conclusions that are not discussed in the given source based on a "basic knowledge" of how terms like "national consciousness and nationalism" have been used by other sources. If you want to keep this up, I suggest a second opinion. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

When I say more detailed concerns, I have this GA review in mind. Could you make a list of issues so I can address them more easily? Your GA review reads like an essay. Please make a list of issues and possible solutions. -- Ե րևանցի talk  14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I can do some basic copy editing for commas and correct use of a/an - for example in response to this review you added "an Catholic order" can you please explain why? As I said, I think it is good for its broad coverage, but that it should be copy edited from start to finish before it is passed. This is a different process from GA Review. If I copy edit an article at GOCE, I would not review it here in GA, because I would be too involved with the article. I can certainly give you a list of some issues I see, but from what I can see, correcting them is not going to be a "minor" task, it will require significant revision. Seraphim System ( talk ) 14:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think my review reads like "an essay" you are free to ask for a second opinion. I don't mind. I am not going to keep repeating myself. In general, I would recommend submitting articles for copy-edit before submitting them GA review. Midnightblueowl looks like he helped you with a major copyedit in his review, and that was very nice of him. But since this has happened previously with a submission of yours, my strong suggestion is to go through the established process of submitting the article to WP:GOCE before submitting it for GA review in the future, and to not treat GA Review as a substitute for a major copy-edit. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples:
 * The entire community relocated at the island on April 1718


 * The monks were members of an Catholic order


 * need to add commas in certain places, which has been pointed out in previous reviews and occurs multiple times here also


 * Mkhitar Sebastatsi (Mechitar or Mekhitar) - are the multiple spellings necessary? If they are necessary, is it necessary to repeat it in multiple places? This is jargon and it should be linked to in a natural way. This article has a lot of jargon and foreign language terms, and they are all packed in tightly. A good copy-editor could figure out how to balance the readability and attention span of readers, with the denseness and technical nature of the information in the article, but this is not a minor or quick fix.
 * His name is spelled in three different versions, none of which is dominant. Mkhitar Sebastatsi is the standard transliteration of his Armenian name. Mekhitar appears in older English sources, while Mechitar is the Italian version. I've left these three spelling in one place only: at the "Establishment" section.


 * campanile (bell tower) ? - is there a difference? If there is, it should be explained clearly in the article, instead of simply linking to bell tower.

Etc. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * consider whether embedded lists/tables might be more appropriate in some places.

Examples:
 * "Settled in the 9th century, it was a leper colony during the Middle Ages, but was later abandoned." - can you say when it was abandoned? Is this before the Mekhitarists established teir monasatsary in 1717?


 * Mkhitar Sebastatsi (Mechitar) - I don't think it is ideal to use a parentheses to tell is he is a Mekhitarist, not once, but three times. Considering explaining briefly who he is, once, and then referring to him as Sebastasi. It might be easier to use plain English here and simply introduce him as an Armenian Catholic monk.
 * The name in the parenthesis is not to inform that reader that he is a Mekhitarist. It is simply a different spelling of his name. -- Ե րևանցի talk  15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you add it in as a footnote instead, and tell us what it is? "Mkhitar may also be spelled ..." and add the sources for this?


 * " as such, one of the world's prominent centers of Armenian culture and Armenian studies, especially during the 18th and 19th centuries. " - be careful here about mixing present and past esp. "it has since been ... especially during the 18th century"


 * "It is often referred to in English as Saint Lazarus Island. In Armenian, the island is called Սուրբ Ղազար, Surb Ghazar, which is also romanized as Surb Łazar" - there is a footnote here so consider if the multiple romanisations are necessary to include in the text. The placement of the citations here also impacts readability negatively.
 * Agreed,


 * Morea (i.e. Peloponnese) - instead of this consider something like "Morea, today known as the Peloponnese peninsula..."