Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deportation of the Crimean Tatars/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2017.

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

 * Nominator(s): Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an important event in history. It was sent to copy editing and peer reviews, all of which are closed and archived. It has been modified and improved according to suggestions and hopefully it is now time to justify its nominations. I hope you will consider the article and address any eventual problems so that they can be corrected and improved. Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Maps, charts, and the symbol image should all be scaled up
 * File:Lavrenty_Beria.jpg needs more information to verify the given licensing tag
 * File:Crimean_nations_18-21_centuries_EST.svg needs a source for the data presented
 * File:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars_symbol_71.jpg: who created this symbol? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know who created the symbol, the image has no source at the Wikimedia Commons.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What size should the maps and charts be? 300px?--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They should generally be scaled, not set to a fixed px size. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done – The images have been scaled up. --Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. As this is evidently the nominator's first FAC I have carried out spotchecks on the online sources:
 * Ref 13 (Banerji). The sentence cited to this source reads "The Crimean Council even organized mass massacres of Russian in Crimea, which killed tens of thousands". I can't find any similar informatioin in the source. (Incidentally, "mass" massacre is tautologous - a massacre means killing on a large scale.)
 * Done – Corrected.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs 28, 36, 46, 55, 63, 64 (Pohl 2000). I have a problem here. The Pohl 2000 source is unpaginated, yet all of these citations provide page references. Ref 36 cites page 1, so I checked the beginning of the source article to see whether any of the multiple details cited to p.1 in your text: "...a total of 8,995 former soldiers of the Red Army of Crimean Tatar descent were registered in special settlements. Among these veterans,  there were 534 officers, 1,392 commanders, and 7,079 soldiers. There were also 742 members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and 1,225 members of Komsomol" appear in the source. The figures are all there, but well beyond what might be considered "p.1". You need to reconsider the pagings of all these references. Also, your wording "1,392 commanders" should read "1,392 sergeants".
 * Yes, I have found a PDF version of the report, with pages on it. Hope this helps .--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done –
 * I checked a number of other sources and found that they supported what's in the article, with no evidence of close paraphrasing.
 * There are several formatting issues:
 * citations to page ranges should show "pp." not "p."


 * Done –
 * A number of citations (nos 13, 19, 76, 78, 81 and others) include an apersand sign. What is it's purpose? The sign indicates the word "and".


 * Done –
 * Ref 58 has an mdash in its page range


 * Done –
 * In the list of books, consistency is required over whether publisher locations are included. Should be all or none.


 * Done –
 * isbn formats should be consistent. The 13-digit format should be used; you can convert 10-digit to 13-digit using this
 * Which isbn formats are not consistent?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done – Never mind, I converted them all to 13-digit isbn numbers.--Seiya (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The isbn for Polian is subdivided while the others are not. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done –
 * The Al-jezeera source is lacking a retrieval date


 * Done –
 * Italicization of sources: again you need to be consistent. Generally, we italicize if the source of origin is  printed, e.g. a newspaper or journal. This you have done in the case of KyivPost but not with Time or NYT


 * Done –
 * Some of your online sources lack publisher details, and in some cases the publisher is being treated as the author.
 * You need to clarify. Which ones?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pohl 2000 shows no publisher. You should add "Self-published" in the publisher field. BBC News is the publisher, not the author, of the "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile" report; the website address is not the publisher  Likewise, "International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam", "Radio Free Europe", "Reuters", "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" and "UN News Centre"  are all publishers. You are not required to provide an author for each source, but you are required to state the publisher. Thus, the proper format for the BBC News source above is:  ". The others should be reformatted accordingly.Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done –

Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede

 * "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944 carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." Quite a lengthy opening sentence. How about cutting it in two? Thus, "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944. It was carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin."? Much cleaner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worth mentioning at that very early point that Crimea was in the Soviet Union; perhaps "Tatars from Crimea, in the southern Soviet Union", on 18 May 1944" or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, should we be giving the specific date "18 May" here? Surely the deportations took a longer period of time; would it not be best to simply state "May"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the lede, we link "Communists" to Communism; a better link might perhaps be Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If we link "Communists", then it is probably best to link Red Army too. Then remove the later link to Red Army that appears nearer the end of the first paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "to modern-day Uzbekistan" - why not just to "to Uzbeskistan", and then link to "Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic"? Also, perhaps make it clear that Uzbekistan was part of the Soviet Union at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The present two-paragraph structure to the lede is perhaps a little dense for many readers. Have you considered splitting it into a three or four paragraph structure? That way we ease the reader in a little more gently, rather than bombarding them with lengthy chunks of prose from the get-go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "would die in later years" - "died in later years"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Stalin's regime" - minor point, but "government" or "administration" might be more neutral here. The term "regime" tends to have slightly negative connotations in the English language, and while I can fully appreciate why many people might think that perfectly acceptable when discussing Stalin's USSR, it's probably best that we try to keep our wording as neutral as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "it was forbidden to even mention that nation in the files of the USSR" - cut the "even", it comes across as being a tad sensationalist or melodramatic. Maybe we could also reword "that nation in the files of the USSR", which is a little clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "condemned Stalin's crimes" - Not particularly neutral wording. Perhaps "Stalin's actions" or "Stalin's policies"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "given permission to return to their homeland" - "permitted to return to Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "issued a declaration on 14 November 1989" - "declared on 14 November 1989". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "deportations of people during the Stalin era had been a criminal act" - scrap "of people"; it is extraneous and self-evident in this context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some further instances of sensationalistic and slightly melodramatic language in the second paragraph of the lede. "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return"... "The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars". It feels a little like the prose deliberately seeks to portray the Russian and Crimean governments in a bad light and that gives me concerns about neutrality. Thankfully, a tidy up of the wording should deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return and did not compensate them for their lost land, by 2004 the Crimean Tatars had experienced a fragile revival, comprising 12% of the Crimean population. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars, nor did it compensate then for their lost property. Also, it never filed any charges or legal proceedings against the perpetrators of this forcible resettlement." we could go for something like: "By 2004, sufficient numbers of Tatars had returned to Crimea that they comprised 12% of the peninsula's population. Local authorities did not assist their return or compensate them for lost land. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, did not provide reparations, compensate those deported for lost property, or file legal proceedings against the perpetrators of the forced resettlement." This wording gives the reader the same information as before but (I hope) avoids any loaded or emotional language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars was a crucial event in the history of that nation" - "that nation" being Crimea or the Crimean Tatars themselves? I think it needs to be made a bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "A rally in Taras Shevchenko Park in Kiev, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 2014" - this reads a little as if it is referring to the deportation having taken place in 2014. Perhaps move "in 2014" to just after "in Kiev"; that should solve the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done---Seiya (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Background

 * "for centuries, from 1441 to 1783" - scrap "for centuries"; it is superfluous given that the dates are provided directly after. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "who were used for slave trade" - "used in the slave trade" would perhaps be a better wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "thus extremely averse to the new Russian rule. Thus, the " - "thus... Thus" is a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Three sentences in a row end with "Ottoman Empire". Bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland" - using the term "homeland" might not be terribly neutral given the emotional resonance it carries. Perhaps "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "in 1783, they had comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population" - the prose here is a little repetitive. How about "in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, this was down to 34.1%." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic nations. This Russification continued even during the Soviet era" - Avoid using the name of a capital city as a synonym for a government. While certainly used in some prose sources, it is not terribly specific and should be avoided at Wikipedia. Avoid the term "nation", which can be quite loaded and has a lot of baggage stemming from the Soviet period, with the more neutral "ethnic group". Also, terms like "even" again reflect a level of sensationalism within the prose. How about "While Crimean Tatars were emigrating, the Russian government encouraged Russification of the peninsula, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic ethnic groups; this Russification continued during the Soviet era". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1941 the Nazis invaded Eastern Europe" - better to say "In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe" as most of the troops in the Wermacht were not actual members of the Nazi Party itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All done.--Seiya (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil
Cant read the sources. Needs a c/e, the language slips into informality at places, which leads me to worry about those sources. The lead image is a dreadful choice. Needs work. Reading through. Ceoil (talk)

Hiatus

 * It's been a whole month since the last attempt at a FA review of this article was made. What happened? Why isn't this progressing further? Why did the users stop half-way through? User:Midnightblueowl, User:Ceoil, User:Brianboulton.--Seiya (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but for me it was the sheer mass of prose problems that prove an impediment. There has been a lot of good work on this article, particularly in attaining academic sources, but it reads very much like the writing of a non-native English speaker. I doubt that it will pass FAC at this juncture, and think that WP:Peer review will be the next best step for the article so that the prose can be tightened and it can be returned to FAC in future; next time, hopefully, with success. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either do the review or don't. You are just randomly mentioning "prose problems" without any clarification, which is useless. What sentences are problematic? Give a clear anwser and they will be corrected. And by the way, a little tip: before posting that an article should be sent for a peer review, you should actually do some research or simply read the first sentence where it was already mentioned that the article was already sent for a peer review before it was nominated here. --Seiya (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The table in this article doesn't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (I'm not watching this page.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? What exactly is wrong with it?--Seiya (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to mark the scope for the header cells. Look for the word "scope" in this edit.  It needs that kind of markup.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Seiya (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * Oppose at this time on prose. Samples only, in just one short section, Modern views and legacy:
 * "historian Peter J. Potichnyj assumes that the dissatisfaction": We don't present what historians are assuming, we present their conclusions and sometimes their opinions. Perhaps a different word was meant.
 * Done
 * "the Central Asia": Central Asia
 * Done
 * "Sokil symbolically took the fate of Crimean Tatars as an example of the nations who were denied this recognition": "symbolically" contradicts "example"; I'm guessing the fix here is to delete "symbolically".
 * Done
 * "which represented a symbolic victory of their efforts to return to their native land": "symbolically" misused again here; they were actually returning, not symbolically returning.
 * It does not say "symbolically returning" at all, please focus. Mr. Williams clearly writes: "In many ways, this migration was a symbolic victory...", which means your comment is overruled.
 * "Not one of the ten nations who were deported": I haven't read all the comments above, but MBO was right to mention that "nations" is wrong in this context.
 * Done. Replaced "nations" with "nationality" to avoid confusion.
 * "Certain Crimean Tatar groups": "Certain" is overly mysterious here. "Some Crimean Tatar groups".
 * Done
 * "finance the rehabilitation": "the" is wrong, and I have no idea what "rehabilitation" means here; it's the wrong word.
 * Yes, if only there was some sort of an Internet dictionary or encyclopedia where one can look up such a term... But just to help you learn a few things, read the context of the 1991 Human Rights Watch report (source in the article) which uses the word extensively:
 * "The Germans  also  charge  that,  despite  pro  forma rehabilitation,  the  failure of  the regime to state loudly  to  the Soviet public  their innocence of  the crimes charged under Stalin exposes them to continuing social abuse. (p. 3)"
 * "Second, the central government should insure that the Soviet public is better informed about the guiltlessness of  these  peoples... The  fact  is that  the "rehabilitations" took place with minimal publicity, announced only  in obscure official  journals without mass readership. (p. 5)"
 * "Koreans became eligible for military service after  the end of World War  II, but only after Stalin's death  in  1953  were  the  other  restrictions  abated. The  Koreans  were  not mentioned  among  deported peoples  in  Khrushchev's  1956  Congress  speech.    A  landmark  in  their  rehabilitation  was  an  October anniversary speech by Yuri Andropov after his accession as Party General Secretary in 1982, in which he made  public mention  of  them  as  one  of  the  nationalities  now  living with  equal  rights " (p. 28)
 * "Undaunted, the Tatars in June, 1957 sent a 6000-signature-petition to the Supreme Soviet demanding rehabilitation and return to the Crimea, the first of a series of petitions with a growing number of signatures." (p. 37)
 * "In most respects  the process of rehabilitating  the  Ingush was parallel  to  that  for  the Chechens, except for the significant problem that when the Chechen-Ingush republic was reconstituted, the Ingush lands ceded to North Ossetia were not returned.   After  they  were  freed  from  exile,  the  Ingush  pressed  ever  more  insistently  for  return  of  their ancestral territory." (p. 48)
 * "Of all the deported nationalities treated in this report, the Kalmyks may be said to have perhaps the most trouble-free existence since their rehabilitation after Stalin's death, but that is only relative: they suffered severe hardships during the period of deportation and exile, and have never received compensation from the state. " (p. 61)


 * "financial compensation for the damages brought by the forcible resettlement.": "damages" means "money won in a lawsuit as a form of compensation".
 * Done
 * "the forcible resettlement": Delete "the". In fact, delete the middle part as redundant: "financial compensation for forcible resettlement". - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All done.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Given the oppose, and the length of time this FAC has been open without attracting support, there is no consensus to promote this article. Therefore, I shall be archiving it shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.