Talk:Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Will be taking this on soon. As a quick early note the Reynolds 2011, p. 203, Hovannisan 1969, p. 172, and Hovannisan 1969, p. 173 don't link properly to the bibliography. CMD (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 2 Article is predominately cited to two book sources, Kazemzadeh 1951 and Hovannisian 1969. Both are decades old, but both seem reliable. Other sources used seem reliable, The Caucasus & Globalization is less obviously reliable but is used once for a probably uncontroversial point. There is a list of references, no original research or plagiarism found so far.
 * 5 Article seems stable.
 * 6 Article has a small number of appropriate images, all tagged as public domain.

Still looking into the writing, breadth, and neutrality. On breadth, the article as it is is quite short and lacking many topics that would be expected of a country article, but the country was only around for a month so this may not be an issue. CMD (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead could use a bit of tweaking. The sentence starting "But after" should probably not start with this, the but implies some contradiction that I'm not sure is intended. "the TDFR was proclaimed as an independent state on 22 April 1918" implies the TDFR already existed, it would be better to state the Commissariat declared independence creating the TDFR. The final paragraph of the lead doesn't flow that well. I'm not sure the word "sustainability" is the right choice, although I understand what it is trying to say. The second sentence might use a bit of tweaking to add more info, rather than suddenly noting peace talks had ended and the Ottomans were going to invade again (also a bit odd as from the infobox map one might expect the invasion to hit Armenia first). The lead as a whole is a bit vague as to how the Transcaucasian Commissariat, presented as a singular, relates to the three successor states. My assumption reading the lead would be that it was eg. Georgian members of the Commissariat who declared independence, but it could be another body somewhere else in Georgia.
 * Lead


 * History
 * "Over the next several decades the administration of the region was variously reformed in order to consolidate Russian control over the region. A Caucasian Viceroyalty was established in 1845 (similar roles had existed since 1801)". This sentence could be better ordered. I don't think "variously reformed" is that clear, and the parenthetical in the second sentence jumps the chronology that had gone from 1828 to "the next several decades" to 1845 back to 1801.
 * Reworded


 * It's also unclear in this first paragraph if "region" is a specific administrative term or a more generic term that doesn't correspond to administrative divisions, or both. If it is meant to be referring to a specific singular unit, perhaps "viceroyalty" would be better than "region" where appropriate?
 * Changed this.


 * "While the Russians managed to win some early battles, they worried that the local population, majority of them being Muslims...". The "While" doesn't seem to lead anywhere, how do the battles relate to the fear of rebellion?
 * Reworded this, hopefully it's a little clearer


 * "In a similar vein, both sides wanted to use the Armenian population to their advantage." It is unclear what this "similar vein" is, as I don't see how the situation might align with the previously described Muslim situation.
 * Clarified


 * "The Soviet met". Elsewhere in this section, plural soviets are referred to as soviets (plural and lower-case).
 * That was for the Tiflis Soviet, which is clarified.


 * "it replaced the Ozakom as the government of the South Caucasus". It sounds like the Commissariat was created by the local soviets while the Ozakom was imposed from St. Petersburg. If so, how did the Commissariat "replace" the Ozakom, did they directly take over whatever system the Ozakom ran, or did they set up a new parallel authority structure?
 * The Ozakom was a temporary body, only meant to serve a caretaker role. I've noted it's temporary nature earlier, that will hopefully clear things up.


 * If the Commissariat was meant to be autonomous, why was it set up awaiting the Russian Constituent Assembly?
 * The idea was that they would break away from the Bolsheviks, who had staged a coup, and wait until things cleared up via the Constituent Assembly. I added some clarity there.


 * "it was dependent on the national councils". These councils have not been mentioned before, so it is unclear what the term refers to.
 * There's not much mention on them before this time, so I've tried to clear it up a bit here


 * "Ottoman" is usually an adjective, "the Ottoman" should not be used by itself. Alternatives include "the Ottoman Empire" or "the Ottomans".
 * Changed to "Ottoman diplomats" as that's the most accurate phrase for who they are


 * "by 23 February agreed to start a new round of peace talks". Is the date of the agreement not known?
 * That should be "on 23 February"; fixed.


 * "so that the Transcaucasus could negotiate with the Ottoman more properly". What is the link between establishing a legislature and effective negotiations? Negotiations tend to be a function of the executive.
 * The issue is that the Transcaucasus still felt as if they were part of Russia at this time, and so de jure had to follow the government in Petrograd. However they refused to follow the Bolsheviks, who were the only group in power there, so needed to follow some sort of government. Thus they decided to establish their own legislature, the Seim, who could order the executive on how to negotiate.


 * "No election was held for the deputies, rather those elected to represent the Caucasus at the Constituent Assembly were named, with the voting threshold lowered to one-third in order to allow more members to join." It's not clear to me how this works. How does lowering a threshold allow additional representation on an individual level?
 * It's mentioned in the note there that delegates for the Constituent Assembly represented 60,000 people, but for the Seim it was lowered to one delegate for 20,000 people. They kept the electoral results for the CA, but this allowed smaller parties to also take part.


 * "These requests were replied to by Chkheidze". Why was Chkheidze replying to letters written to two other people? What were the responses of the generals?
 * He was Chairman of the Seim, so had authority over the military matters.


 * Formation
 * The second paragraph of "Renewed Ottoman invasion" makes it clear Chkhenkeli does not want to surrender Batum, but the third paragraph states "Chkhenkeli was receptive to the loss of Batum". It's unclear how this transition happened.
 * Clarified


 * "...the Seim had hesitated as they wanted to keep their link with Russia. With that no longer a concern, there was no real issue." It is not clear why at this point the link with Russia was no longer a concern. I presume it is due to the Bolshevik takeover, but this sentence is a bit out of chronology so it is unclear. Why not cover this early debate about independence earlier in the article? Is it the same as the debate mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of "Renewed Ottoman invasion"?
 * It is, so I removed that repetitive mention and merged the paragraphs.


 * "As the Commissariat had ceased to exist upon the declaration of independence". Why had the Commissariat ceased to exist, rather than simply having their role changed?
 * Clarified.


 * "After negotiations with the Mensheviks, who warned that they would only support having Chkhenkeli or the Dashnak Hovhannes Kajaznuni in charge, the Dashnaks relented; Kajaznuni being an Armenian, would give the perception that the TDFR intended to keep fighting, which would threaten the rest of Armenia." It is unclear why the Menshevik position on Chkhenkeli and Kajaznuni relates to the Dashnak position. If the Menshevik's supported Dashnak too, why was there an issue?
 * Tried to clarify this; the issue is that they felt an Armenian in charge would lead to the collapse of the federation, and the invasion of Armenia, not something the Dashnaks wanted to happen.


 * Dissolution
 * "The Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian representatives" Are this Seim representatives of National Council representatives?
 * Clarified


 * "At 15:00 a motion was made..." Did this motion pass?
 * It did; re-worded to clarify.


 * "The delegates from the Seim left the chamber and were replaced by those from the Georgian National Council." Was it only the Georgian Seim delegates who left? Or had everyone left?
 * Just the non-Georgians.

I have listed here the more clear examples and questions I have regarding the current prose, and I have made some edits myself (please do check). There are other more minor areas where the prose could be touched up as well. On the other hand, nothing jumps out as a neutrality concern. I also have found no apparent issues with breadth. I note that some of the papers cited here were just this year put together as a book. This book includes three papers not used in this article (Chapters 6-8), which may be worth looking into. Given most criteria are met, I am putting this article on hold. Best, CMD (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I should get everything addressed in the next couple days, and will let you know once I'm done. I will make one quick comment about the above-mentioned book: it is the published version of the journal articles already used, so the book on it's own isn't going to add anything new (though it would be my preferred source to cite). For the three articles noted, I recall not seeing anything terribly useful there, but will read them over again to make sure I didn't miss anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed everything so far but the lead, which I'll get to after some more review. If you have anything else to add, please let me know though. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything should be addressed now. And regarding the other journal articles, I took another look and don't think they really provide much more that isn't already noted here. Any other comments I'll be glad to address. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Still unsure from the article how the Ozakom derived its authority, and how the Commissariat replaced it. The current text also suggests the Commissariat was created by the Tiflis Soviet, which doesn't sound right, although let me know if it is.
 * Added some more clarification, hopefully that works better.


 * "Ottoman" is still used as a standalone noun in a few places.
 * Fixed those.


 * The wording for the election sentence still isn't clear. From 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election I understand the Transcaucasus were a single electoral district, but it isn't clear how delegates within that district were selected. However, I've made some wording tweaks which I think create fewer questions, let me know if it's still accurate to the source.
 * Yeah, you pretty much have it there.


 * Regarding the Russian generals, I'm assuming from the text and the control of Chkheidze that they were operating under the control of the Commissariat, if so this should be clarified.
 * Are you talking about the mention of Lebedinskii and Odishelidze? If so I made some changes, but I'm not sure if that's the best wording.


 * The Kajaznuni sentence is still not reading properly. I think the issue is with the phrasing in "who warned that they would only support having Chkhenkeli or the Dashnak Hovhannes Kajaznuni in charge". That sounds like the Mensheviks wanted Kajaznuni, not that they didn't want Kajaznuni.
 * Tried to word it around again, maybe this time it works?

CMD (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied to the above. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great changes. To check my understanding, the Mensheviks told the Dashnaks "it's either Chkhnekeli of Kajaznuni" as almost a threat, because electing Kajaznuni would likely lead to the loss of further Armenian territory to the Ottomans? CMD (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If they let in Kajaznuni the whole thing would fall apart, which would have ended Armenia (in their view). Kaiser matias (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Threatening an Armenian party with an Armenian leader. I'm sure there's more intricacies that could be teased out there, but this article is GA ready. Passing. CMD (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It really was an unusual situation. Thanks for the review, really appreciate your in depth look at things. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)