Talk:Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: That is a fine article..

scope_creepTalk 17:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 03:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll review shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Olympian: I noticed you've been editing the article the past few days, so I wanted to note that if you are still working on it I can hold off my review, or if you think I can go for it now. Just let me know, I'm good either way, and don't want to pressure you by any means either. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just polishing it up, it's ready to be reviewed now. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 00:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to see it done. I'll start going through it today, and should have comments either today or tomorrow at latest. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to it. – Olympian ^loquere 01:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead map caption needs to be modified. Right now it's just a copy-paste of the caption from Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, including an unexplained acronym (I know as I wrote the TDFR caption on that article).

• The flag for Shamil bey Airumlinsky, Omar Agha, and Hasan Bey is not identified. Would be good to have a link there, or note it in the belligerent section.

• Note in the lead what happened to Kars in the end, as it's not clear (only Nakhichevan is mentioned).

• Add the Cyrillic for "uezd" at the first mention, for consistency with other translations in the article. The word is also bolded erratically in the article; personally I wouldn't bold any, but be consistent regardless.

• "Some months after the Sovietization of Azerbaijan on 18 June 1920..." This implies the Sovietization Azerbaijan happened in June 1920; I'd reword it, maybe even start by noting the Bolsheviks invaded Azerbaijan in April 1920, and going from there.

• The article seems to end abruptly without a conclusion to the events. It would be good to include an "Aftermath" section of some sort, or something of that.

• Is there any other maps or images that can be incorporated? It would be nice to have something at least, if possible.

• This isn't a major issue, but stylistically it looks better for multiple citations to be ordered by number (example: the last paragraph of "Background" has them going "23, 24, 25, 26, 3, 27).

• Citation 14 currently links to an image of a document. Rather than just a link, best to note what it is and use the citation provided on the source there. You can still keep the link if need be, but as it is it's not appropriate.

• The links to Andrew Andersen's articles are a little uncertain. While I know Andersen is a scholar who has focused on the conflicts in this era (though I don't know how well-received he is by the larger academic community), the site hosting the articles is throwing me off. Is there anywhere else he's published it? If not that's fine, I just want to ensure things are good here.

• What makes Mediamax.am a reputable site (I don't read Armenian so can't check myself)?

• What makes citation 27 reputable (Bakour Karapetyan's article, hosted on Paperzz)?

• Have you looked at Caucasian battlefields; a history of the wars on the Turco-Caucasian border, 1828-1921 by WED Allen (1953)? Does it have anything worth adding here?

• As well, is there anything published by sources not focused on Armenia? I realize the subject will be more for that side, but want to ensure that nothing is missing here.

• Lastly, I would suggest formatting the citations to be one style. I'm particular to what you have with the Hovannisian books, and would suggest doing that for them all (or at leas all book sources).

Overall it's not a bad article, comprehensive and not too complicated to understand. If the above can be addressed I will be happy to pass. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

1. I've rewritten the caption per the map's labelling.
2. I am not aware of the Kurdish insurgents using an official flag so I've just used a standard Kurdish flag to represent their ethnicity.
3. I've added a mention of Kars' fate.
4. I've added the Russian Cyrillic for uezd and okrug, I've also un-italicised all the uezds mentioned in the article.
5. I've improved the wording re Azerbaijan's Sovietization to avoid confusion.
6. I've added an aftermath section.
7. Unfortunately, there is a pitiful shortage of maps on this part of history, however, I could add in some portraits of politicians/commanders mentioned in the article.
8. I've improved the ordering of said citations.
9. I've improved the citation for the image of the American telegram message.
10. I've deleted the Andrew Andersen citations.
11. I believe Media Max is reliable as their historical articles are presented fairly objectively and cover a range of topics—I haven't seen anything from them to discredit their reliability .
12. I've deleted the Bakour Karapetyan citation.
13. I've just added some content from that book, thanks for the suggestion.
14. Unfortunately, if there are non-Armenia-focused sources on this topic, I believe I included them as they aren't numerous. I would assume these uprisings are mentioning in Turkish or Azerbaijani sources but they would probably be more one-sided and presenting the conflict in a completely different light (i.e. claiming these areas were never part of Armenia in the first place).
15. It's my understanding that the Hovannisian-style citations are only appropriate for books cited multiple times for different pages, therefore, if a book is only cited once, it doesn't seem useful to have it in the bibliography – please correct me if this is the wrong view, and let me know which books/refs you think would be better suited using this bibliography citation style.

Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 01:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work here. Regarding the images, I do think it would be good to have one or two of appropriate individuals or events. As for the citation style, there's no standard method for going with it, so long as things are uniform. My comment was more a suggestion, so if you're happy with it, then don't worry about it. A well-done article, and well-worthy of Good Article status. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I will definitely have a look for some appropriate images, I may also make an SVG map of the uprisings to give the reader a better visual representation. In regards to the citation style, I had a look at your fantastic TDFR article and got an understanding of what you mean—I will reformat all the book citations in that style, in any case I appreciate the suggestion and agree with its implementation. Thank you for the review. Cheers, – Olympian ^loquere 01:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that with the help of Turkish and Azerbaijani agents, Muslims in Armenia revolted in 1919–1920 and massacred over 10,000 Armenians? Source: Hovannisian, Richard G. (1982). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04186-0.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Olympian (talk). Self-nominated at 04:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Olympian: good article! However, I don't really feel that the hook is all that interesting. Could you propose a better hook? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Olympian: hook seems better now so I will approve in good faith. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)