Talk:Surb Karapet Monastery/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a few days on this. Sorry you've had to wait since Christmas Eve to get this reviewed. Appalling service!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * You don't need to source it.
 * ✅ Fixed.


 * It also needs to have a summary of architecture and something on the festivals.


 * History
 * Who is Vazken L. Parsegian?
 * ✅ Removed the sentence completely because Parsegian does not seem to be an architectural historian or historian.


 * Why is "sometimes" cited like that?


 * "seems to be establishing the pre-eminence of the monastery." -why is this quoted?


 * "During the Middle Ages the monastery "owned twelve large burghs with a total population of 22,813. In this way this monastery was equal in its extent and wealth to some of the principalities owned by the nakharars."3" -also, please paraphrase
 * ✅ I removed the sentence completely, because it is pretty vague. The Middle Ages lasted for around a millennium (500-1500) and the source doesn't specify any specific historic period.


 * Again with The remaining stones are "being systematically carried off by the local Kurds for their own building purposes."
 * There's not much to paraphrase here, in my opinion.


 * Architecture
 * For people like Robert H. Hewsen, Dickran Kouymjian, H. F. B. Lynch, Henry Fanshawe Tozer  etc it would be good if you state what they are before the name, like "according to religious scholar xxx, according to writer etc


 * Cultural
 * Caravans of pilgrims visited it even from the remotest parts of the country. They made the yard of the monastery a place of great merriment and festivities." -either attribute this quote or paraphrase it, the latter ideally.


 * Shouldn't songs be merged into cultural references?
 * ✅ Fixed.

For sources in Armenian you should give as language=Armenian in the citation templates.
 * References

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Good job, if you want anything reviewed in future just ask me, might save you having to wait half a year :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)