Talk:United Armenia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments will be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • "Some experts claim that as a result of the activities of the Armenian militant groups in the Western European countries, the Armenian Genocide became internationalized." Please specify which experts.

   • done

   • This phrase is a little confusing: "For Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan, Hovannisian has hinted at with 'vague formulations'."

   • I know it is. The problem is that I don't know how to put it in a sentence that would make more sense. Hovannisian often talks about those areas and makes statements that are not always clear, unlike the ARF which openly and clearly states which territories it claims as Armenian. The phrase "vague formulations" is from Aravot newspaper.

   • How about this: "Hovannisian has implied that he also favors the annexation of Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan." --1ST7 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

   • The thing is that he doesn't really favor their annexation. I think we should somehow include the phrase "vague formulations", because it is so accurate. If you look at his article on Foreing Policy Journal [1], you can see that he doesn't really state that he favors the forcible annexation of those territories. For Javakhk he says that its Armenian population should be treated better, while for Western Armenia he says "Modern-day Turkey must face history and itself, recognize the great genocide, and cease its unlawful and inhuman occupation of Western Armenia." That's not really a call for annexation.

   • Okay, maybe the phrase should just be altered to "Additionally, Hovannisian has hinted at Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan with 'vague formulations'." It sounds a little more clear that way. --1ST7 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

   • Sounds good.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   • Several paragraphs under the sections "Origins", "World War I and aftermath", and "Republic of Armenia: 1918–1920" need citations. The general rule is at least one reference per paragraph.
   • Ref number 10 is to Encyclopedia Britannica, which I don't believe is accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   • Article is focused and appears to cover all of the main aspects of the topic.

4. Neutral:
5. Stable:

   • No edit wars, etc.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

   • All images look good.

I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues.

I want to add that you seem to do a really great job with the Armenia-related articles, especially considering the lengthiness of some of them. This article has been particularly interesting to read. --1ST7 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. Yes, the mentioned sections are not quite appropriate for a Good Article. I'll try to do my best in rewriting them and adding more reliable sources. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just rewrote these sections. Hopefully, they meet the GA standards now. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks good. There's just one thing left: the first paragraph of "First Republic of Armenia: 1918–1920" still needs a citation, but aside from that, the article looks ready for promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

sources added --Երևանցի ^talk 03:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work. --1ST7 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and also for the copyediting. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --1ST7 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)