From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Varagavank has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 28, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 1, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... ... that the Varagavank monastery was the site of Armenian resistance to Turkish government forces during the Armenian Genocide?

Merge proposal[edit]

Shouldn't this article be merged with Monastery of Yedi Kilisa? Sardur (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I hadn't realized that article exists.. Yes, it should be merged. Serouj (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And, needless to say, under "Varagavank", which is most used by specialists. Sardur (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should not be merged, the historic and original Armenian name of this monastery is Varagavank.

Then it should be merged and renamed into Varagavank, if that is the best name. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Yedi Kilisa should be merged to Varangavank per Sardur. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article (Varagavank) should be merged into Monastery of Yedi Kilisa as 'Monastery of Yedi Kilisa' is older one. Than if necessary, 'Monastery of Yedi Kilisa' can be renamed to 'Varagavank' (if Varagavank is more appropriate). This way the history of the article and its creator are noted, while the article gets a proper name. You can ask some administrator for help with this. Regards, --Kebeta (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Will review within a couple of days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Reviewing now, sorry for the delay.

  • Remove the sources, 10 is excess anyway.
  • The monastery was "one of the great monastic centres of the Armenian church"[9] and "the richest and most celebrated monastery of the Lake Van area".[5] -according to whom
  • "Significant part..." why is that last part quoted? Should be written in your own words.
Foundation and medieval period
  • Delink True Cross per OVERLINK bleh, just did this...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • " All the churches were destroyed, except the St. Hovhannes Church which had an iron door and where the monks hid. " -the monk hid in the iron door itself? Needs rewording here.
 Done by Casliber
Modern period
  • "In 1651 Suleyman, the prince of Hoşap Castle, invaded the monastery, robbed the palace, manuscripts, treasures and the Holy Cross, which was later repurchased and made it part of the Tiramayr Church of Van in 1655." what was later repurchased, the Cross? New sentence after Holy Cross with "The cross was later repurchased" might do.
I've reworded, but you might look at it again anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
19th century
  • Delink Vardapet in second instance
  • You should probably attribute the quote in the last sentence
what quote?
  • The description is really lacking I think. The article tells me little about it architecturally or its frescoes etc. Is there really nothing more on it?
  • Never begin a paragraph let alone a new section with a quote!
 Done by Casliber


Place all book sources in bibliography and use footnotes for pages. You can draw the sources up again here.

I was expecting to pass this pretty soon, but I think it's still a little rough around the edges and the sourcing needs to be made consistent. In some places the dates recited are a bit repetitive and almost in note form. Would benefit from a further copy edit and ideally some expansion of architecture before I'm ready to pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is much like Dr Blofeld's - good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Should add that the other thing that needs to happen is direct quotes converted to prose. I have done a couple and will do some more as I suspect as a native English-speaker I can do this more readily than the nominator. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Are you going to respond here? I'll leave this for a few more days but I'm afraid I'll have to fail it if it isn't improved by then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I gather there's nothing more available documenting its architecture? The prose seems to have much improved now anyway. Can you let me know if you can find anything before we proceed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • " Archbishop Bardughimeos Shushanetsi renovated the monastery in the mid 170s." -1670s or 1770s?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this nomination, because the article is not ready to be classified as a good article. --Երևանցի talk 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

We're just about OK I think Yerevantsi since the copyediting of it by Eric and Casliber, but when I ask a question about things like architecture I'd really appreciate an adequate response from you as well as some sort of appreciation that I've spent the time reviewing it. I'll take for granted that nothing more can be found about it architecturally. This looks OK for GA now I believe, thanks for bearing with me on this, you've already waited long enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)