Talk:Gregorio Pietro Agagianian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Grégoire-Pierre Agagianian)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

Sugestion for expansion:

In the wiki entrence about Josef Stalin (see: Childhood and early years), there is a reference of G. beeing his classmate at the Seminary of Tiflis in Tbilisi, Georgia.

Maybe someone would like check that, and corect eather this or the Stalin entrence. Thank you in advance.

It is a silly joke. Stalin started at the ORTHODOX seminary of Tiflis in 1892 or 1894. Of course, there is no way Agagianian could have been there, even at the later date. --Pan Gerwazy 14:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition, and seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)



Grégoire-Pierre AgagianianGregorio Pietro AgagianianWP:COMMONNAME Երևանցի talk 09:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why the Francized version of his name should be used on English Wikipedia? VIAF shows that the Vatican Library, International Standard Name Identifier, and the German National Library all use his Italianized name, which makes absolute sense as he lived most of his adult life in Rome. --Երևանցի talk 09:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gregorio Pietro Agagianian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gregorio Pietro Agagianian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Below is my initial review. I'll come back to it later tonight or tomorrow to see if there is anything else that needs to be addressed, but as a whole it is looking pretty good right now. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    His family was part of the Catholic minority of Javakhk Armenians is a bit unclear. Are Javkhk Armenians a minority that is predominately Catholic or was his family in the Catholic minority of this ethnic group? Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    he thereafter served as a parish priest in Tiflis (Tbilisi) is there a reason for giving two names? If not a clear reason, I would suggest just using Tbilisi as the common English name. -- I actually think that using Tiflis is more reasonable as it was the city's common name when Agagianian lived there. --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    synod of Armenian Catholic bishops see below, make it clear that it was the bishops of the sui iuris Church.
    became the 15th patriarch of the world's 100,000 Armenian Catholics is unclear and might be easy for the reader to misunderstand: the implication one could take is that all Armenian Catholics are a part of the Armenian Catholic Church. I would rephrase to make it clear that at the time that was the membership of that sui iuris Church. Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    According to Rouben Paul Adalian, following the sizable losses in the Armenian Genocide, "According to" and "following" so close in proximity is a bit awkward, I would try to find a way to work the clause into the rest of the sentence. Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Neither of these are against the MOS, but I thought worth mentioning:
    I would split the Propaganda Fide section into paragraphs if possible. Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    The Recognition header might be better worded as legacy
  2. 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:
    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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Source 6 (Miranda) is a self-published source. I've seen it used in conclave articles in the past and it is useful for getting context and finding other sources. In this case Miranda lists Croaty, A. Cardinal Agagianian, papal legate: a profile. Dublin: J. Duffy, 1961. as his source. It would be much better to use that than cite Miranda. Alternatively from my review it looks like most of the information is non-controversial and can be easily cited using other sources, or is already cited to other sources in-line. Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I'm not sure the 1958 conclave vote table is necessary or wise to include. It delves into the details a bit too much for a summary biography, and is also based on totals claimed to have been taken by a cardinal walking out of the conclave. I'm open to discussion on this point, but wanted to bring it up. Fixed --Երևանցի talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall very good, and these are for the most part minor things. My largest concern is with Miranda as a source, which I think can be addressed fairly easily since most of that information is probably pretty easily available in other sources.
    Great job on the article. It meets the criteria with the fixes. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)