Talk:Armenian Americans/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review on this article. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

This one has been a bit slower going than usual for me. It has an immense amount of work and good material, very well sourced. My first gut feel is to wodner / ask whether there could be a bit more coverage on cultural / cultural traditions. I really didn't notice such but will need to read it a couple more times to be sure. Also I was thinking that the wording could use a bit of wikifying in a few places, but I'd be happy to help there. In any case, neither is serious enough to non-pass GA, but they may be good to discuss. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to do some research on traditions to better my knowledge on the topic. While working on this article last November, I considered adding a section on Armenian American dance groups, but for some reason I didn't. Maybe I should also write a paragraph on cuisine? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anything culturally related (cuisine, dance, traditions, ~~music,~~ social structure) would shore up an area that I think is light in coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Northeast" the last phrase of the sentence seems to be missing something: "In the early period, New York and Boston were the largest centers of Armenian Americans, but by the time Los Angeles took that title." Could you check that? North8000 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Early History" the following sentence seems to be missing something and thus not really saying anything , not saying anything: "In 1854, the existence about 20 Armenians was documented by American demographers, and by the 1870s, the number reached 70" I'm guessing that it meant to say those numbers of Armenian Americans, but I was afraid to change it as I could not confirm with the sources because it is off-line. Could you check that? North8000 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed--Երևանցի ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta admit, one area where I'm tougher than others is in empathy for the reader. Without doing a lot of research, I couldn't tell what the following sentence was saying: "Emigrants from the Russian Empire were underrepresented in emigration from Armenian lands across the Atlantic (about 2,500 came in 1898–1914), because persecution of Armenians was more intense in Western (Ottoman) Armenia." My first guess was that you are saying that the Russian Empire area was underrepresented because it was a non-persecuted area. I see 1 1/2 issues with this. First you didn't say/explain it. The second "1/2" is that just mentioning a particularly well-represented area is generally not considered an explanation for an underrepresented area. Could you clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Before the Armenian Genocide of 1915, most Armenians lived in the Ottoman and Russian empires. What that sentence meant is that more Armenian came to the US from the Ottoman Empire than Russia, because Armenian were, relatively, more safe inside the Russian borders than in Turkey. Also, just so you know, the article was copy edited by User:Khazar2 and User:Shrigley during my first GA nomination. Apparently, this wording belongs to one of them, because I had hard time figuring it out too. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Second wave..." could you clarify whether the following sentence is referring to in Lebanon, Iran or the USA? "These communities were well established and integrated, but not assimilated into local populations." North8000 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Երևանցի ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement: "rate of Armenians committing crimes in Glendale in 2000 was about twice as low as the total number of Armenians in the city, at 17% and 27% respectively." really doesn't say what is being compared. (what is 17% of what, what is 27% of what) Also, once it is clarified, make sure that it is a valid/useful comparison reathen than an "apples and oranges" one. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so 27 is the percentage of Armenians in the city of Glendale. 17% is the portion of crimes in the same city done by Armenians.

Maybe this version will make more sense. "Armenians compose 27% of Glendale's population, but only 17% of the crime in the city were perpetrated by Armenians" --Երևանցի ^talk 03:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies it. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to my "first impression" comments, I now believe that it covers a bit more in those areas than my first impression. To the point where I think that while those additions would certainly fill a "weak spot" they are not necessary to pass GA. There is one other thing that I noticed in several places (in a minor way) that could use a little work, but not necessary to pass GA. I'm noto sure whetehr it is a matter of language fluency or careful extraction from the source, but it seems to make a lot of statements in a brief categorical way where such makes them a bit of a reach. On the ones where I noticed this, the sources were off line so I couldn't readily go there. But again, these are too minor to affect GA passage. So, after fixing that one specific open item,, I could pass this as a GA, or else, if you prefer, could bring up / work with you on those other areas after which it would pass a "tougher level" of GA review. Thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have the last say. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the former, and just add suggestions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. It could use more "smoothing" in the presentation of the large amount of factual material presented, but that is just a suggestion for future development. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. Could use a little more in the cultural area, but this is more a mater for future growth. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has approximately 30 images (15 are in one collage) All are free so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Congratulations. This passes as a Wikipedia good article. I have left a few suggestion is the review checklist. What a large amount of excellent work! North8000 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer.[reply]