Template:Did you know nominations/Chechen-Russian conflict

Chechen-Russian conflict

 * ... that the Chechen-Russian conflict (Chechen rebel pictured) dates back as far as 1785?
 * Reviewed: Japanese serow

Moved to mainspace by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough and well sourced. QPQ done. Hook is short and directly sourced. AGF on offline sources. Images in article appear fine.
 * Symbol question.svg Hook image appears fine, but it's not used in the article currently.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check again. -- Ե րևանցի talk  17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine. It's just that the image nominated with the hook (File:Evstafiev-chechnya-tank-helmet.jpg) has to be used in the article. See DYK.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Good to go now.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from the queue as I think the article has POV and probably accuracy issues. For example, the article simply states that the conflict began in 1785 when Russia tried to conquer Chechnya, but the first source for the article I reviewed states that the 1785 conflict was begun by a Chechnyan revolt led by an imam who planned the forcible conversion of his neighbours. The article mentions this revolt but presents it in such a way as to imply that the revolt was the result of the Russian invasion rather than the other way around. The same source also seems to suggest that the conflict began well before 1785, between Chechens moving down from the mountains and Cossacks who had settled on the plains. The rest of the article similarly seems to be lacking in contextual information to say the least. So I think this one will have to be held until a more thorough review can be completed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Ref 4 from the Universirty of Maryland says "Sheik Mansur leads Chechens in their first attempt to resist Russian encroachment on their lands." The University of Southern California source (ref 5) says "Russian military involvement into the Caucasus started early in the 18th century and in 1785-1791 the first major rebellion in Chechnya against the imperial rule took place." Doesn't this mean the Russians wanted to conquer Chechnya and the Chechens revolted? What exactly is POV here?
 * The rest of the article similarly seems to be lacking in contextual information to say the least. So I think this one will have to be held until a more thorough review can be completed. I thought Wikipedia is a community and everyone is free to edit. Isn't that the case? I didn't know this is a GA/FA review. Let others too fill the "lack in contextual information" as you claim. -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The U. Maryland source looks leftwing and a little iffy. The USC source doesn't exactly contradict the source I mentioned above, but regardless both of the sources you mention are nothing more than brief chronologies, the other source is much more detailed and presumably more accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What source are you talking about? And what exactly is the problem here? -- Ե րևանցի talk  16:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what kind of argument is that? The "source looks leftwing and a little iffy". So an academic source is not reliable just because it appears to not adhere to your taste and political preference?
 * In any case, the book by Schaefer, p. 56, corroborates the view of events currently given in the article. It describes Sheikh Mansur as preaching strict Islam and jihad prior to 1785 (no mentions of conversion by force, though), with "encroaching Cossacks ... and the new fort in Vladikavkaz" in the background, then the Russian Empire invading Chechnya and igniting a rebellion against this intrusion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not too surprised. I'm not saying this because of the creator, but these type of articles are known for such issues. It seems to be a Wikipedia issue. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a new review -- Ե րևանցի  talk  21:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't need a new review, it's still under review by myself but I haven't had time to return to it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't 3 days enough to assume that you have left the review? -- Ե րևանցի talk  07:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at T:TDYK. There are nominators who have been waiting 2 1/2 months for completion of their reviews. There is a long backlog here due to shortage of reviewers, and I currently have a lot of work to do on other nominations, so you are going to have to exercise some patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Per User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, refs 7 and 8 Harvrefs come up as "doesn't point to any citation". — Maile (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirming that it was fixed. — Maile (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think one month is an enough period to assume that Gatoclass isn't returning to this. Needs a new review. -- Ե րևանցի talk  06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't forgotten about this nom, I just had a more difficult nom to fix first. Now that's done, this one is next on the list. I think I should be able to complete work on it in the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  What's happening here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I intended to get back to this one weeks ago but then a couple of policy discussions came up that triggered a serious case of wiki-burnout and I just had to walk away from the project to replenish the batteries a bit. I am feeling a little better now so I will try to get this one ready for review in the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Passing note to indicate that I looked at the article, and made some revisions for context, balance and copyediting, and have let Gato know. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my apologies to Yerevanci for the time it's taken me to complete my additions, and my thanks for his patience. I think I have more or less completed my additions to this article now, so if Yerevanci has no objections to the new content, this nomination can now be relisted for review. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you! I don't have any objection. Someone should do a review now. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  16:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll stamp it, good job everyone, this is GTG (date, size, hook, refs, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)