Talk:Nakhichevan uezd/GA1

GA Review

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: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I will take this review. Initial impressions favourable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Specifically, the lead section (see below)

2. 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:

   Plagiarism percentage 0.0% according to this copyright website.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Olympian, this is a generally excellent article. You will note I have made an edit changing some stuff (redoing the layout, adding to the citations, and some minor prose editing). However, the lead section needs a large amount of work. It should summarise the contents of the article, and the information it contains should mostly be a summarisation of the body. The current lead section, however, contains several important geographical and administrative points mentioned nowhere in the article body but also does not provide any summarisation of the extensive history section. This is a major issue, so I am putting the article on hold until it is fixed. If you have any questions, please let me know below. Thank you, and good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Hello, I significantly expanded the lead to summarise the entire article. Moreover, I've added information only mentioned in the lead to their appropriate sections throughout the article. Please let me know if this is acceptable or if anything further is required. The diffs are shown here.Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 04:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A few more things:

Nakhichevan needs to have a standardised spelling through the article.

The second paragraph of the lead needs work. "81,000 Muslims (Tatars, i.e. Azerbaijanis, as indicated by the 1897 census)" is confusing, and Massacres of Armenians is a rather vague link.

I have made significant efforts to smoothen the disjointed layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the layout. To answer your points,

1. "Nakhichevan" is the commonly-used Romanization of the district capital from its official Russian name "Нахичевань", which is why I wrote it first then added and Wkilinked the city's modern name in parenthesis.
2. In regards to "81,000 Muslims ..." – the Russian Empire avoiding calling Azerbaijanis by their ethnonym (there was no eponymous Azerbaijani state before 1918) and instead referred to them as Tatars, and even in some official publications such as the cited Caucasian Calendar, they completely omitted the term "Tatar" and simply wrote "Shia Muslim" when describing the ethnic compositions of districts – Therefore, describing the cited Russian statistics without original research becomes a difficult endeavour as evidenced by the confusing sentence. If you think that it wouldn't be considered original research to simply state "81,000 Azerbaijanis", I can add that instead, I was just unsure if it's acceptable.
3. Finally, I think that the massacres of Armenians wikilink can be removed (I was attempting to lead the reader towards reading about the ethnic cleansings of Armenians from Nakhichevan, however, I think it's covered in sufficient detail in another article I wrote and wikilinked (Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan)).

Cheers, – Olympian ^loquere 09:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

With regard to point 2, I think if you have a source for the Tatar --> Azerbaijani confusions, it would be very helpful to add it in the note. Otherwise, good work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't insert a citation into the lead's note, however, in the demographics section I cited a reliable source attesting to the Tatar–Azerbaijani misnomer and also improved other wording. Diffs are shown here. Please let me know if anything further is required. Cheers, – Olympian ^loquere 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have done so. Congratulations on a good article! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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.