Talk:Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ready when you are, Seraphim System .--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok let's start with images:
 * Are you sure about the licensing on this one? It is PD-old, but the author is stated as unknown? Is this maybe the wrong license?
 * If you want, I can remove the first two images in the "Historical background" section to spare us the time. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How can we verify the CC license for this image?
 * I cannot verify it because no source was given by the uploader. I presumed that any image on the Wikimedia Commons is automatically free to use until deleted. Again, if it is really such an issue, the image can be removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the source for the map?
 * If you want, I can remove the first two images in the "Historical background" section to spare us the time. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * same question
 * This is a routine map that depicts the location of Chechnya. Hardly any reason can be argued against this specific example.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * same question again
 * It is a general depiction of the wave of transfer of the Vainakhs, from Chechnya to Central Asia. No specific locations of their settlements are depicted, and thus no clear argument can be given against the map.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another PD-old with unknown author - also the source given for it does not appear reliable, can you say more about it (I don't read Russian, btw)
 * I do not read Russian either. At any rate, if it is really such an issue, it can be removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments on 1a:
 * "Some place its origins as early as 1785" -- some historians? Corrected.
 * "into their lands on the Caucasus." -- shouldn't it in in the Caucasus Mountains? On the Caucasus makes it sound like it's a pensinsula. Corrected.
 * "The Chechens and the Ingush speak languages that are closely related and have a degree of passive intelligibility, both being Vainakh languages." -- not clear how this relates to the paragraph. Moved to the beginning of the text.
 * "The Caucasus War was fought between 1817 and 1864. In it, the Russian Empire succeeded to annex and subjugate the people of the area," -- In it? Corrected.
 * "The Soviet Air Force even had to bombard the Chechen-Ingush republic in the spring of 1942 to suppress the rebellion." -- could it be changed to "bombarded the Chechen-Ingush republic" ? Done.
 * "However, they managed to only recruit 13 people in the area." -- clipped sentence, can it be merged into the preceding sentence Done.
 * "when the German troops approached Ingushetia" -- 'when German troops' Done.
 * "with the Soviet counter-offensive that drove the Wehrmacht from the North Caucasus" -- if there is a main article for this can it be wikilinked? Done.
 * "the Wehrmacht entered the Northern Caucasus," -- North Caucasus Done.
 * "encouraging anti-Sovietism" -- needs to be reworded, the seizure of the territories encouraged anti-Sovietism? Rephrasing to be more clear.
 * "However, the Nazis never reached Grozny." - clipped sentence, could be merged into the next sentence. Grozny should be wikilinked. Done.
 * "Various authors question the Chechens' ties with the Germans, some pointing out that the Nazis stopped at the northwest outskirts of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR, near Mozdok, in Northern Ossetia, and that a majority of the Vainakh never even came with a direct contact with the German army." - needs to be rewritten. Various and some together is too much vague language, and it needs to be stated more clearly. Done.
 * "As such, the Nazis never even reached their territory." - starting to sound like it is making at argument ... Corrected.
 * "While there were secret negotiations with the Germans near this border, the Chechen rebels pointed out that they did not favor a rule neither from Berlin nor from Moscow." -- rm neither Done


 * In October 1942, Chechens assisted other volunteers to help erect a defensive barrier around Grozny. -- Grozny should be wikilinked the first time. Done.

For example there is a long paragraph about possible ties between the Chechens and Germans - what does that have to do with the deportations? There are several sentences that argue that the Chechens fought with the Soviets and very few fought with the Axis powers and the next paragraph resumes discussing the deportations. In the middle of that paragraph it says Beria complained to Stalin about the "low level of labour discipline" among Chechens, the "prevalence of banditry and terrorism", the "failure of Chechens to join the communist party" and the "confession of a German agent that he found a lot of support among the local Ingush" but it needs some revision for clarity (per "clear and concise" prose) and clear topic sentences would help with this. Done. I've moved that paragraph into the next section, "Deportation".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think for an article like this the review may take some time. I am willing to keep it open for a while, if you want to continue working on it during the review but it is not ready to pass without some more work. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't strikethrough my comments, or insert your responses in the middle of my comment, just add a done in order after my comment. Please fix this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked over the changes and this isn't going to be enough to pass GA. Simply reordering the content isn't going to be enough - someone familiar with the sources is going to have to go over it and do substantial rewriting. Right now it reads more like a selection of facts but its not clear how those facts connect to the topic of the article. The article, especially the background section, needs to be written clearly and concisely so that someone without background knowledge of the article can understand it. It's still not clear why the languages are mentioned. The last round of edits you changed it to make it the topic sentence, but the rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with languages. The Circassian Genocide is mentioned, but it's not mentioned if scholars include Chechens as part of the Circassian Genocide. There is a lot that is left vague, and its left up to the reader to guess how it connects to the topic - I think the work needed to bring this up to GA standard is going to be more then what can reasonably be done in the course of a GA review. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seraphim System, you didn't put any effort into this review. You hastly got rid of it, actually, and took it away from someone who would have done a proper review, instead. I was just starting to address your comments, and already you close the review with a negative outcome, in less than 24 hours from my reply? Based on only one section? This is simply dishonest and astounding. The reasons you give above are confusing and blurry (it's kind of late brining up new questions now, when you closed the review, isn't it?) or undue (strikethrough is routinely used when getting rid of an issue in the review process: ), but since this is a done deal, I'm not going to get into this anymore. Goodbye.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issues with the image licenses was enough for a quick fail, btw. The prose issues are extensive and substantial, and you don't seem to understand what I have said about topic sentences - you are still saying I raised the issue without giving you a chance to respond so it does not seem like you read my first comments carefully when I asked you to review the use of topic sentences in the article. Instead of blaming the reviewer for not putting as much effort into a review as you would like, I encourage you to Google "topic sentences" if you don't already know what those are and consider making the effort of at least checking the image licenses before nominating articles in the future. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Lingzhi
To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows: When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First, copy/paste  to Special:MyPage/common.js.
 * On the same page and below that script add . Save that page.
 * Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add.