Talk:San Lazzaro degli Armeni/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 14:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement
Hello! I will be your reviewer for as long as it takes to pass this article to Good Article. I have experience with writing about Architecture on Wikipedia, but not with Armenia, and it will be up to the reviewee to provide me with pertinent context.

For replying to Reviewer comment, please use ✅,, , ❌, , or , followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow after this and my first comment (Referencing). – ♠Vami _IV†♠  14:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Referencing
Short and brutal: the referencing on the article is a geographical mess. To begin, all properly sfn-cited are in working order, which is good, except for Lord Byron at the Armenian Convent, which has no citations linking to it. There are a number of books and academic articles that are not in this walled garden, thus breaking the sfn format and standing in stark contrast to sfn citations they touch. As of time of writing, these are citations 8, 11, 13, 23, 28 to 30, 39 to 44, 57, 61 (does not have page number), 62, 64, 66, 71, 80, 81 to 86, 90 to 92, 96, 97, 100, 101, 106, 110, 112 to 119, 122, 124, 127, 128, and 131. A number of these also do not use the |url= parameter, instead using an external link in |page(s)=. As of time of writing, these are 8, 13, 23, 28, 29, 39 to 44, 57, 71, 82 to 85, 92, 106, 110, 112, 113, 115, and 117. Reduce these to "Bibliography" into relevant sections and use sfn citations. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  15:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest I do with the "books and academic articles that are not in this walled garden"? I've only included sources which are directly related to the island. It would take so much time to include all articles in the Bibliography section, which I do not have. Ե րևանցի talk 08:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! I didn't see your reply. I was linked this tool recently. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, there are several citations with comments on them, which is also against the grain of the article because it already uses efn footnotes. These are either redundant, already being in the article prose (citations 3, 9, 28, 45, 51, 59, 65, 77, 78 (double instance), 83, 88, 90, and 129), irrelevant (citations 46, 113, and 115), or should be in the article prose (citations 50, 71, and 123 to 125). – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

 * Any update on how this review is progressing? AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Failing. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)