Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh War/archive1

Nagorno-Karabakh War[edit]

This article is well-written, well-researched, well-sourced (boasting 52 different sources), and very objective. MarshallBagramyan deserves most of the credit for bringing this article to where it is now. Presently, it is a GA and I believe that it's time it was elevated to FA status. -- Clevelander 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. For reasons above. -- Clevelander 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the condition that it's shortened. It's too long.--Eupator 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious answer here but provided some of the sections are shortened to individual articles --MarshallBagramyan 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, massively undercited; many large portions of text—and even direct quotes!—have no citations. More generally, I'm concerned that almost all the references seem to be newspaper articles, even though a number of books dealing with the topic (including those listed as "Further reading", for example) are not used as sources. Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This is yet another in a continuing trend of 'lots of inline citations (good) but almost all of them to newspapers (bad)'. Please use more academic sources (journals and books), this is not Wikinews.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too would like to see more in-line citations and more reputable sources. For example, all numbers should really have citations. The article also has some prose problems; it needs a thorough copyedit before it reaches FA status. That aside, however, this was a very interesting read. I had never heard of this conflict before.UberCryxic 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article covers thoroughly its subject and should be FA; that is why I cannot object. Nevertheless, I agree with Kirill that it is under-citated. Especially, when assessments are made inline citations are necessary (we speak about a very delicate case, susceptible to POV). Two examples:

"The ramifications of the war were said to have played a part in the February 2004 murder of Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen Markaryan who was hacked to death with an axe by his Azeri counterpart, Ramil Safarov at a NATO training seminar in Budapest, Hungary." Said by whom? Citation needed!
"The shipment of the arms were said to have been originally authorized by defense minister Pavel Grachev and purportedly sent during the height of the war in 1992-1994" Same question!
"Looting and mutilation (body parts such as ears, brought back from the front as treasured war souvenirs) of dead soldiers were commonly reported and even boasted about among soldiers." According to whom? Citation needed.
"After the war ended, both sides alleged that they were continuing to hold captives; Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia was continuing to hold near 5,000 Azeri prisoners while Armenians claimed Azerbaijan was holding 600 people." Who gives these numbers?

I must also point out that the article is huuuuge, 101 Kb, almost all prose. Because of that and because of the many parameters of the war itself, I think the creation of some sub-pages is necessary. This will result in the better covering of the whole subject--Yannismarou 07:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment on above statements I would just to know how exactly do sources such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the London Times, and the Toronto Star not measure to credibility? The books I listed on this page are primarily partisan and the usage of some of those sources are opposed by Armenian and Azeri editors alike. I searched through numerous newspaper databases and most of us agreed that they provide the most accurate assessments of the war and since they quote government and military officials. If they were excluded, we would have an incomplete article with many gaps. Furthermore, most, if not all of the books provide incomplete details and offer mere summaries of specific battles, (the taking of a town on such a date, for example). The war has not been approached by too many non-partisan writers.

Moreover, from what I have learned in writing English compositions and essays is that every sentence does not require a citation. One citation can be used for an entire paragraph of information. Many pieces of information are widely accepted, we're not going to add a source for common sense statement; that is akin to saying that the sky is blue.^[1]

In regards to the italicized statements:

"The shipment of the arms were said to have been originally authorized by defense minister Pavel Grachev and purportedly sent during the height of the war in 1992-1994" Same question!" The article cited (the Washington Times) states this. Again, I'm summarizing what the article had stated into a paragraph and showing the source at the end.

"After the war ended, both sides alleged that they were continuing to hold captives; Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia was continuing to hold near 5,000 Azeri prisoners while Armenians claimed Azerbaijan was holding 600 people." Who gives these numbers? Again, read to the next line which is related to the prisoners and see the cited source states this.

If need be, I'll include citations for the other two highlighted sentences. I feel the article is sufficently cited. The Polish-Soviet war is nearly the same length has almost the same number of citations. I'm trying to trim the sections and shortening the article. I've reduced it by 8 kilobytes so far. --MarshallBagramyan 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm curious to see what other users who do not have extended involvement with Armenian-Azeri articles have to say here. Marshall offers a pretty good argument, let's put the voting on pause for a bit and see what others have to say. -- Clevelander 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment Can someone clarify what is exactly wrong with the styling of the sentences that make it so...mundane? I formatted the language especially to cater to the needs of people who do not need to scramble for their dictionaries and feel that they are reading an encylopedia article not an essay.--MarshallBagramyan 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object Overall 101KB, of which 76KB is prose, confirms the previously mentioned massive lack of adequate inline citations. The Table of Contents is overwhelming, and the article does not conform to WP:MOS or WP:GTL, needs to emply Summary Sytle, and needs better inline citations from higher quality scholarly sources. Weasle words pointed above are also a concern. Sandy 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article reflects too much the Armenian POV, and the newspaper quotes are selective. I described some of the article flaws on the talk of the article. The article is not well sourced. Just an example, quote: Such claims were illustrated when Armenian troops broke through the Azeri defenses in Agdam in late April 1994, at the cost of 56 men during the offensive, Armenian forces had killed at least 700 Azeri troops. The estimate on casualties is taken from the Armenian source (Markar Melkonian. My Brother's Road), which has its own agenda, and not from a neutral source. The presented figure looks nowhere near reliable, still it is presented as a fact and not an allegation of the Armenian side. Grandmaster 11:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article is just way to POV, I mean just look at the logistics alone, no Azeris had the chance to contribute to this article and all the sources are pretty much unreliable, pretty much all pictures are Armenian. Way to POV and besides its also to long for a article. Baku87 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny seeing as how some Azeri editors (including you, Baku) have contributed to this article at least once. -- Clevelander 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about POV. The article has certain flaws that me and other users pointed out, but it is not POV. I felt I had to comment, because, reading the article, I understood the editor had no intention to go with one or the other size. He tries to be objective and exposes the arguments of both sides. As far as statistics are concerned, he tries to use the most accurate sources.--Yannismarou 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is partially within the NPOV: 1) the lead mentions the religious affiliation of both sides which contradicts the later article's statement: "contrary to media reports which nearly always mentioned the religions of the Armenians and Azeris, the war's religious aspects never gained enough significance as an additional casus belli" (fixed); 2) the Renewed fighting section contains the Armenian quote "There will be peace only through our victory" and the Kelbajar section contains another quote within the NPOV right below the headline; 3) the majority of images are of Armenians; 4) the sentence "...before the truce was to take place, Azeri forces backed away from the peace accordance which led Armenian government leaders to announce that they too would in turn refuse to accept it" has a bad link to quote (the headline doesn't exist in the given link). So I currently object. --Brand спойт 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment in regards to the headline doesn't exist in the given link. The links to the Washington Post's archives are extremely long and putting them in it is a waste of space. Just enter the headline in its archives to find the article you are looking for. --MarshallBagramyan 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ source

[1] source

[1]