Talk:Siege of Erivan (1804)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by HistoryofIran in topic 1796 drawing vs 1805 coin?
 | Siege of Erivan (1804) has been listed as one of the Warfare 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. Review: October 21, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Erivan (1804) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Armenia may be able to help! |
 | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copy edit
edit@LouisAragon: Had a first quick run through. There is a new cite needed. What do you think? If you are happy I will expand the lead and have another run through for copy editing.
The quality of this article's English is much better. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Reference 16 is Tapper, p. 152, but their is no Tapper in the source list. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: It seems AustralianRupert beat me to it. Thanks, both of you! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Erivan (1804)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Performed a minor copyedit
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Looks good. Passing.
- Pass or Fail:
1796 drawing vs 1805 coin?
edit@HistoryofIran: I found a Russian-made plan of the 1804 siege which I believe is kinda ok for the infobox. Would you keep the 1796 Russian etching in the body of the article, or would you swap it with something like a 1805 coin minted in Erivan by Fath-Ali Shah?[1] Curious for your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coin_of_Fath-Ali_Shah_Qajar,_Iravan_(Yerevan)_mint,_dated_1805.jpg){kind=link}
- @LouisAragon: The etching imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)