The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia[edit]

List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia has been recently promoted and Czechia is almost there. Now I am covering the Caucasus. Armenia has 3 sites and 4 tentative ones, so the list is a bit shorter than the previous ones, but still long enough. The style is standard. Azerbaijan and Georgia lists will be next. Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Following the breakup of Soviet Union" => "Following the breakup of the Soviet Union"
• "Armenia succeeded the convention" - "succeeded" definitely isn't the right word here, but I am not sure what is. Do you mean the country adopted the convention?
• "with additional four on the tentative list." => "with an additional four on the tentative list."
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Fixed. As for the "succession of the convention", that's the wording the UNESCO site uses. I could change it but it makes sense to me ... --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean the date the country adopted/signed up to the convention? "Succeed" used as a transitive verb can only mean either "to follow in sequence and especially immediately" or "to come after as heir or successor" (ref: Merriam Webster) so "the country succeeded the convention" definitely isn't a correct usage..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest using "ratified", like the Slovakia list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess ratified works. Probably some paperwork needed to be done before so it was not automatic anyway. --Tone 17:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24: Thank you for checking, comments below. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• A missing retrieval date in ref 9, which I assumed is because the live link is dead, so no issues (?)
  • Updated.

Reliability

• The established convention has been to use UNESCO sources for UNESCO lists, so no issues here.

Verifiability

• Refs 7, 12 good
• Ref 10, not seeing some of this, shouldn't it be Khosrow II? The dates aren't matching either
  • It must be a typo in the UNESCO source, it was Khosrow III that is associated with Dvin in the 4th century CE. I added an extra reference for the time period, though sources are messy (Iranica says " The often expressed view that Ḵosrow had previously shifted the capital from Artaxata to Dvin is based on an unreliable report of Moses of Khorene (9th century), who relied on the much shorter text of Pseudo Faustus." But I don't want to get into such details for a brief description.)
    • Weird, thanks for the additional ref. Iranica is weird since they hide the author and date at the bottom (Erich Kettenhofen). Add those and we'll be good here Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel silly for requesting this—have added it myself. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 13 seems fine, though I think when the source says "This area of the Vorotan Valley is of considerable geological interest" they mean that there is much in the valley which is of particular geological value (i.e. important rocks or rock formations maybe). Your "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" seems to downplay this a little; am I making sense here? Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source material is really short on this, I see your point but there's not much in the UNESCO text to work with here. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed... no worries. Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 3 doesn't appear to mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union. True, but the Soviet Union ratified the convention already. Not sure how to source this independently, except if I link the Russia's UNESCO site where the date is shown? It needs citing, so however you do it, and it doesn't have to be a UNESCO source, it needs a reference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I'll just remove it, we didn't mention it in the case of Lithuania, for example. Since no sites in Armenia were listed under the Soviet Union, this makes little differece. But I'll eventually figure out how to deal with it in some other countries. Why aren't we implementing row scopes, there's a clear candidate (the site name) each row. Ha, thanks for spotting, a remnant from the previous design. "From the architectural point of view" -> "Architecturally" In the lead you link "Upper Azat Valley", in the table you just link "Azat Valley" but in both cases you pipe them to a redirect. Fixed, apparently this was moved after I worked on the article. "4th century CE" you haven't added CE to other "century"s. Fixed "on the site, " which site? Rewritten. "Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots" article says ii, iii, not ii, iii and vi. I am not seeing vi anywhere? Yererouk appears to be (iii)(iv)(vi) and not ii, iv, vi. Typo fixed "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" can we explain this please. This has been mentioned above, the source is to short to make something decent up... But it's encyclopedically meaningless right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'll just remove it, indeed it is meaningless. No harm in that. These are very old nominations and they tend to be of poor content. I wonder if this section in the table ought to say "Year submitted" rather than "Year listed", as this aren't listed in the UNESCO sense, just in the candidate sense. Well, we've been using this style for a while. Listed on the tentative list is technically correct so I wouldn't change it. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I'm through, please check. Thank you! --Tone 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I think I resolved the two remaining issues. --Tone 07:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Grapple X[edit]

I've given this a combing over and I'm happy with it as it stands; my only concern is a minor one--we have a pretty short list here with no great reams of text, and yet the word "site" is used about thirty separate times. I know a lot of this is unavoidable but I think a few of these instances could possibly be reworded, for example All three sites are cultural sites could stand to simply drop the first "sites"; similarly perhaps As of 2021, Armenia had four such sites on its tentative list could switch it with "candidates" or something of that ilk. It's not an important concern and not one which would prevent my support, but worth some consideration. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Well, it is an official naming, I am sometimes using "nomination" instead, but often it is indeed unavoidable. --Tone 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

• File:Geghard entrance-IMG 2525.JPG — How do we know that this is licenced under CC Attr 2.5? Do we have a direct link?
• File:Tatev Monastery from a distance.jpg — How do we know that this is licenced under CC Attr 3.0? Especially as its uses Facebook as the source.

Please ping me whenever you reply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Nice catch. Since there are alternatives without dubious licences available, I replaced both. --Tone 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, Pass for image review. I have nominated File:Tatev Monastery from a distance.jpg for deletion. The recently added images seem to be appropriately licenced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

• "important centres of learning" is vague, who is learning what?
  • I removed the sentence, this was one of key things the medieval monasteries did. The source does not directly say whether they were learning religious things or crafts and similar.
• "according to tradition by Gregory the Illuminator, following the adoption of Christianity as a state religion in Armenia" is too close to the source's text
  • Rephrased.
• khachkar should be italicized, and maybe defined instead of just linked
  • Done.
• "Armenia had four such sites" should be present tense
  • Fixed.
• Dvin: since the source says "regional administrative centre", maybe say "regional capital" instead of "regional centre", which is ambiguous for what it's a centre of. Though since it already says "serve as the capital of Armenia" either form seems redundant.
  • I'll go with regional capital, as the capital of the Sassanid Empire was elsewhere.
• The lead should summarize the sites, such as most being monasteries and religious sites.
  • Done, makes sense.
• https://armenia.travel/en/history/unesco-world-heritage-in-armenia should be an external link.
  • Why not, added.

Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Reywas92: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.