Talk:Armenian illuminated manuscripts/GA1

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

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

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]