Talk:Gregorio Pietro Agagianian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Below is my initial review. I'll come back to it later tonight or tomorrow to see if there is anything else that needs to be addressed, but as a whole it is looking pretty good right now. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   His family was part of the Catholic minority of Javakhk Armenians is a bit unclear. Are Javkhk Armenians a minority that is predominately Catholic or was his family in the Catholic minority of this ethnic group?  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   he thereafter served as a parish priest in Tiflis (Tbilisi) is there a reason for giving two names? If not a clear reason, I would suggest just using Tbilisi as the common English name. -- I actually think that using Tiflis is more reasonable as it was the city's common name when Agagianian lived there. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   synod of Armenian Catholic bishops see below, make it clear that it was the bishops of the sui iuris Church.

   became the 15th patriarch of the world's 100,000 Armenian Catholics is unclear and might be easy for the reader to misunderstand: the implication one could take is that all Armenian Catholics are a part of the Armenian Catholic Church. I would rephrase to make it clear that at the time that was the membership of that sui iuris Church.  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   According to Rouben Paul Adalian, following the sizable losses in the Armenian Genocide, "According to" and "following" so close in proximity is a bit awkward, I would try to find a way to work the clause into the rest of the sentence.  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Neither of these are against the MOS, but I thought worth mentioning:

   I would split the Propaganda Fide section into paragraphs if possible.  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   The Recognition header might be better worded as legacy

2. 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:

   Source 6 (Miranda) is a self-published source. I've seen it used in conclave articles in the past and it is useful for getting context and finding other sources. In this case Miranda lists Croaty, A. Cardinal Agagianian, papal legate: a profile. Dublin: J. Duffy, 1961. as his source. It would be much better to use that than cite Miranda. Alternatively from my review it looks like most of the information is non-controversial and can be easily cited using other sources, or is already cited to other sources in-line.  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

   I'm not sure the 1958 conclave vote table is necessary or wise to include. It delves into the details a bit too much for a summary biography, and is also based on totals claimed to have been taken by a cardinal walking out of the conclave. I'm open to discussion on this point, but wanted to bring it up.  Fixed --Երևանցի ^talk 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall very good, and these are for the most part minor things. My largest concern is with Miranda as a source, which I think can be addressed fairly easily since most of that information is probably pretty easily available in other sources.

   Great job on the article. It meets the criteria with the fixes. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)