Talk:Stepanakert/GA1

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

Reviewer: ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! :) I will be reviewing this article for GA status! I will be using the GAProgress template below to show my progress of this review. Once I am finished, I will be placing everything in the GATable GAList2 template to explain what needs to be changed for GA status. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The article is well made, but there are a few issues, listed below, that need to be fixed before promotion to GA. The Twin towns section contains a word to watch: the word "purportedly" is used when explaining Azerbaijan's description of Montebello's twinned status with Stepanakert. As it is already stated that the sentence is of Azerbaijan's view, saying that it is "purported" adds more doubt to their point of view. Fix these and this part is good!
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The portion quoting the OSCE Minsk Group in the Air section should either be placed in quotes (although it may be too long for a quoted copyrighted section) or paraphrased entirely, check MOS:QUOTE for further information.
 * The portion quoting the OSCE Minsk Group in the Air section should either be placed in quotes (although it may be too long for a quoted copyrighted section) or paraphrased entirely, check MOS:QUOTE for further information.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * References and bibliography are listed
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * For the most part, sources are reliable, but I do not know if the Great Russian Encyclopedia (second bibliographical citation) is trustable when it comes to disputed territories like Stepanakert, as there will be some Soviet/Russian bias (noting the GRE's articles for Sevastopol and Donetsk).
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig did not bring up any major copyvios aside from the OSCE Minsk Group portion, although that is quoted. Addressed in 1b's comments
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Seems to cover all the main points
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * This is a very important part of this article, as it discusses a disputed territory. That being said, I reckon neutrality has been handled well.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Not many new edits since the article got nominated for GA, but the article remains quite stable as a result.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * One of the images, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, is currently being nominated for deletion as a result of incorrect and unknown attribution, so I will hold off on this until the deletion discussion is complete.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The aforementioned image, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, doesn't seem to be that relevant, as there appears to be no mention of a tribune in the article's prose.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold until issues listed are completed. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold until issues listed are completed. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello :) Thank you so much for reviewing the article and providing helpful information on how to get it to GA status! I have implemented the suggested changes. I paraphrased the OSCE statement (feel free to let me know if it is sufficiently different or too close) and I removed the word purportedly. As for the image, I removed it altogether and replaced it with a 19th century Russian postcard that claims to depict the garrison of Khankandy which is discussed in that section. I completely agree with your concerns about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, however, at least for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it seems editors on both sides have a rough consensus that Russian/Soviet sources are generally ok to use, in addition, the controversial information that it is used to support is also confirmed by corresponding western sources. Please let me know of any other changes I can make to improve the article! Best,  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding so quickly, I truly appreciate it! Your work on the article has been excellent and it's very worthy of GA. Here are the rectified issues:
 * 1b - OSCE: So I think I've made a mistake in the review, in which I hadn't checked Close paraphrasing when dealing with the OSCE statement... now I think the best solution would be to put it in quotes as per MOS:QUOTE, something like:
 * The OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, stated that "operation of [Stepanakert Airport] cannot be used to support any claim of a change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh" and "urged the sides to act in accordance with international law and consistent with current practice for flights over their territory."
 * So that section is
 * 1b - Word to watch: As you said, the "purported" section is fixed ✅
 * 6a and 6b: The postcard image contains correct attribution and is copyright-free as per Russian law, which is another plus. So, I will confirm that part as ✅
 * 2b: I agree with your explanation, and so as such, I will also confirm this as ✅
 * Thank you once again :) ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thank you again for your review and helping me fix the issues in the article! I have replaced the paraphrasing with the quote you provided. I truly appreciate the help! Best,  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome! In this case, that means this article is now GA! Thank you so much :) ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)