Jump to content

Talk:Armenian illuminated manuscripts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

Okay, let's do this properly. I take issue with the following sentence, which currently opens this article:

Armenian miniatures of Illuminated manuscripts are one of the most beautiful pages of Medieval Christian art.

A Wikipedia article should not state that anything is more beautiful than anything else. Beauty is subjective, and by definition POV. POVs from books, reviews etc. can be included as long as they're attributed to the author, and not stated as fact. In any case, they should never be in the first paragraph of an article, let alone the first sentence. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian miniatures of Illuminated manuscripts are one of the most beautiful pages of Medieval Armenian art. Nareklm 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I don't understand. If your usage of "beautiful" differs from the common one, please explain to me how, and provide a dictionary definition of the usage you were aiming for. Also, please don't remove NPOV tags unilaterally. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Narek, please stop creating new pages. That sentence is POV and unencylopedic!--Eupator 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'll work on the issue immediately. دانيالوه (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I deleted plenty of images. I don't know if that helped with decreasing the sandwiching enough but I tried my best from a mobile view. دانيالوه (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:T'oros Roslin (Armenian, active 1256 - 1268) - Canon Table Page - Google Art Project (6915047).jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:T'oros Roslin (Armenian, active 1256 - 1268) - Canon Table Page - Google Art Project (6915047).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 17, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian illuminated manuscript
An example of an Armenian illuminated manuscript, the Canon Table Page illuminated by Toros Roslin. The earliest surviving examples of this tradition of illuminated manuscript, which draws on both medieval Armenian art and the Byzantine tradition, date from the Golden Age of Armenian art and literature in the 5th century. This example is more recent, dating to 1256.Illumination: Toros Roslin
Archive – More featured pictures...
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian illuminated manuscripts. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Armenian illuminated manuscripts. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian illuminated manuscripts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prodrummer619 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No grammar mistakes.
Already fixed 112 grammar mistakes.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Follows the manual of style guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Two citation needed tags. However, I don't want to
immediate fail this article because I'm the second
reviewer and there are only two of them. Citation issues fixed.
2c. it contains no original research. No issues
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It addresses all aspects of the topic in detail.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article does not seem to contain any
unnecessary details and wordiness. Although
some quotes could be shortened.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article has neutral coverage on the topic.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. An excessive amount of images and some seem randomly placed.
They are too large which creates weird text warping for some desktop screens.
Some images need to be identified.
Excessive images removed and more information has been
applied in the captions of the images.
7. Overall assessment. Overall pass


Comment: Not the nominator or reviewer, but I agree that the use of images is excessive by a long way. There are blocks of 2, 4, or 6 images used when one would suffice to make the same point. The four images that appear in the lead are not identified; they need a much longer caption, and there doesn't need to be four images. The point of images should be to illustrate different styles and techniques that are mentioned in the text, not to take up as much of the screen as possible with images. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion: This article may have many grammar mistakes. For example:

  • "Very few fragments of illuminated manuscripts from the 6th and 7th centuries have survived."
  • "The aArt experienced a golden age in the 13th and 14th centuries, when the main schools and centers started to pop-up (fifteen hundred centers of writing and illumination)."

Consider to fix what you can. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@دانيالوه as the nominator of this article. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prodrummer619 as the first reviewer of this article. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed more than 40 grammar mistakes. Still a lot more!
@دانيالوه There are two {{citation needed}} tags in this article. Can you find reliable sources? The person who loves reading (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

دانيالوه, Prodrummer619, where does this review stand? I don't see that the issue of excessive images has been addressed, while the bulk of the review is yet to be completed. It would be great to get this nomination moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

دانيالوه (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, BlueMoonset, I deleted plenty of images. I don't know if that helped with decreasing the sandwiching enough but I tried my best from a mobile view. دانيالوه (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_illuminated_manuscripts&oldid=1198995296"