# Talk:Siege of Erivan (1804)

@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)

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
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: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Looks good. Passing.

@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)

@LouisAragon: The etching imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)