Talk:Alexander Atabekian/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a potentially very interesting and useful article. I believe the nominator, Grnrchst, has put forward a number of articles previously for assessment to be Good Articles that have been successful so I look forward to reviewing this one. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on for review! Just so you know, I'll be away over the weekend, so I'll get back to any comments you have some time next week. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: It is an honour and a privilege. Here you are. simongraham (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks so much for the comments. I'm back from my trip, but unfortunately I seem to have caught something nasty, so I'll need a few extra days to recover. Will try to respond to this first chance I get. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: No problem. I have put the article on hold so please do take a look when you are feeling better and able to. simongraham (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article is of reasonable length, with 3,524 words of readable prose.
The lead looks of an appropriate length at 445 words.
93.5% of authorship is by Grnrchst.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
Earwig gives a 12.3% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. Interestingly, most of the top 5 hits seem to be works by Atabekian in the public domain.
The following are duplicate links: Armenian, Cheka, International Institute of Social History, Ottoman Empire, physician, Russian and socialist anarchism.
The text seems generally clear and neutral, balancing different points of view.
All potentially controversial and other key material seems to be cited.
References seem credible, and a good mix between academic and non-academic sources.
Thank you for including translations of his own publications as well as the non-English titles in the bibliography.
WP:AGF for the offline sources.
Spot check confirms Adams 2003, Biryukova et al 2013, Melis 2010, Mitchell 2010 and Selbuz 2006 are relevant and discuss the topic. Ness 2010 is fascinating, although I find the way that it references pages confusing.
The infobox image seems appropriate and relevant and has a relevant PD tag.
The other images have appropriate PD or CC licenses. There are both illustrations of Peter Kropotkin and of his funeral cortege. Is the latter because Atabekian is in the picture? If not, I suggest having both is at risk of breaching MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

Some suggestions to improve the grammar and spelling:

Remove comma from "by the Ottoman Empire and European countries, and elaborated his vision".
Add comma after "his hospital had run out of medicine".
Please change attacks to attack or it to them in "the Imperial Russian Army's attacks against the local Armenian and Kurdish populations, comparing it to the German occupation of Belgium."
Suggest changing which to that in "one which was carried out against the will of the people".
Suggest on rather than in "freedom, equality and justice".
Remove the superfluous his in "he was focused on writing his what would be".
Suggest changing the section start from "By this time" to include the year.
Reword "But sources have differed as to the exact details of his death".
Remove the superfluous the in "warned against the disregarding of ethical considerations".

That, I believe, is everything.

@Grnrchst: Excellent work. I cannot see any major issues, just a few suggestions. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Ok, I think I've seen to everything. Feel free to have a look over and let me know if you have any more notes. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst: Great stuff. I'll finish the review now. simongraham (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.