Talk:Armenian genocide/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Des Vallee (talk · contribs) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well Written: Good.

The article is very readable, understandable and complies with WP:MOS and well written, written in an encyclopedic fashion. It is very navigable not overusing jargon written with direct statements followed by a citation. It gives a detailed summary using hyperlinks to give more detailed descriptions. With an overall summary, with links to main and sub articles. This allows the article to be a smooth experience for the reader while using the hyperlinks for more detailed information. Grammar is all correct, lead is a good length giving a detailed summary of the article. The article is not overly long or overly short and contains an immense amount of information linked in other sub-articles and citations,.

Verifiable: Great. Copyright violations: None.

No citations needed, no cleanup needed, no clarify and no other tags present. This is a extremely touchy subject similar to The Holocaust but the citations are all extremely reliable.

The citations use the style laid out in GA and Featured article status, using a series of scholarly authors, and reflects academic consensus, particularly of note is how nearly ever citation also has a link to a Wikipedia article of the author giving more context to the reader.

The sources use a reliable secondary, and tertiary sources which is absolutely needed on an article like this and is divided into sources all of which have inline citations to specific pages, quotes, used by the article. The article follows the guidelines for citations excellent and all is easily verifiable with links to the author and IBSN. The article's sources are easy to navigate and the subject easy and generally intuitive for the reader to get more information. The citations used by the article are excellent.

Coverage: Good. The coverage of the article is extremely in depth, following an easily understandable coverage of the event detailing from the start of the Genocide with the Young Turk revolution onto the first world war. It gives context to the reader such as the Armenian population centers, it details the land taking in Van and the impact that would have on Armenians in the coming years. As well as detailing the growing tension in the region particularly mentioning First Balkan War as well as previous massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Empire. These extensive summaries of the events a hyperlink to usually a fully contained article. Giving essential information without being bogged down. It deals with every event of the genocide in a timeline following events chronologically, then giving the legacy aftermath, death toll and impact.

Neutral: Yes This article is neutral and mirrors the scholarly consensus of the genocide, which the article does so absolutely. It uses various sources including Turkish ones such as Ronald Grigor Suny, Simon Payaslian, and Taner Akçam. It follows an overall structure of the article is an emotionless statement followed by an inline citation. It doesn't use much Contentious labels instead simply stating an event or historical event and moves on.

Stable: Fine This is an controversial article, like all articles on Genocide are, this is an extremely messy and depressing subject matter, despite this the article has been able to maintained to be stable. The article has remained consistent since 2019, this article is subject to community sanctions limiting to one revert, while sections have changed the overall core of the article is more or less the same. It's not an ongoing event, and has been extensively detailed in reliable sources so therefore no new information will ever change the foundation the article.

Illustrations: Great Cannot be denied there has been an immense amount of illustrative media, the maps are extremely detailed and all relate to the context. I spent hours going over looking through the maps taking in information, of particularly note is Systematic deportations section. The map is extremely detailed but also clean and readable. The images of the actual genocide are gruesome but are all illustrative and absolutely necessary to the article. All files relate to the subject itself, one suggestion would be to add a collage of images to better illustrate the genocide. All media is finely presented in an applicable manner, all images are licensed under Creative Commons, no copyright violations or non-free content is used in the article. The media presented fits the article perfectly, it's detailed without being cluttered.

This article is easy to navigate, well written, with citations thar well sourced with inline citations, pass. Des Vallee (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Des Vallee Thanks so much for your review! I just wanted to correct something for the record. The article has not been stable or consistent since 2019, I rewrote it almost entirely between November 2020 and March 2021. But since then the edits have been fairly minor and we have no ongoing edit wars so I agree stability criterion is fulfilled. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Keep up the great work this article definitely earned it. Des Vallee (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)