Talk:First Republic of Armenia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Four found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
...as well as Alexandropol and Echmiadzin which they wanted a railroad to be built to connect Kars and Julfa with Baku. What is this supposed to eman?

The Armenian and Georgian members of the Republic’s delegation began to stall. Which republic is this?

Nevertheless, it was forced to sue for negotiations at Treaty of Batum, which was signed in Batum on June 4, 1918. "it"?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref #3[2] leads just to a book listing. as the book is 125 pages long, we need page numbers for these cites. As it is a US Congress document presumably it is available online somewhere?

As I cannot access the other references, I shall assume good faith.

Administration section is completely uncited.

Ref #15 - Strategics textbook, 9th grade is not accepatble as a reliable source.

Military section is uncited
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Military section is over detailed. A prose summary is all that is neccessary. We don't need to know how many underpanst the army had!

The Geography section should be converted into prose with a description of the geography, rather than tables which add little to the understanding.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article needs a lot of qwork before it is worthy of GA status.
It needs a thorough copy-edit.

It needs fully referencing.

Page numbers for the US Congress document cites, also an online link if possible.

Better reference for the Military section.

Better referencing throughout.

When that has been done, take it to WP:Peer review and the then if you like renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]