Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian-Circassian War


 * 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 promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Russian-Circassian War
This article is one that I have been working on for quite a while. After the success of a previous article of mine to FA I was keen to bring this one up to that standard. After a peer review, GA nom and A class nom which were all successful and provided some helpful comments (though albeit not as many as I hoped) I think I have worked at it hard enough to push forward for FA class. Originally there were some POV views with a number of my initial sources coming from a pro-Circassian source from a group of Circassian historians working out of New York. From these references I decided to take only dates and a minimal number of figures in order to cut out POV risks. However I have subsequently come across a couple of highly useful printed sources on the war which have proved invaluable.

Please be specific with your concerns and points, and please check back here when you can, as I will attempt to rapidly address/fix any issues raised here. I look forward to critical comments as always, as they will improve the article. Fire away! SGGH 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Why is there a citation (the Unrepresented Nations and People Organisation one) redundantly listed so many times? It should be grouped like the others. Also, just out of curiosity, why aren't there any interwiki links? I find it odd that the English wiki would be the first to discuss a Russian war. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have a hunt around and see, but I honestly don't think it has been covered. As for the UPNO, there are about 4 different articles there that I am using as sources, so if I refnamed them all up I don't think it would reduce it too much, but I will get on to that soon . You have already done so, thanks! The UPNO articles were less varied than I remember, I must have used the others pureply for reference without taking cites. SGGH 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Cryptic, you have covered over two different sources and named them both as UPNO when they were in fact different URL's, I'll go through and change them back in a moment. SGGH 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I've gone through it again now. Sorry, I had to revert your second edit because it was easier to start again. Thanks for working on it though, it should be all fine now! SGGH 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you ought to take a closer look at citation formatting, or take a look at other featured articles that use large books. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean I ought to replace the long citations with "Badley p.206" then I will do so shortly. SGGH 07:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few MOS issues. I've seen 350'000 instead of 350,000, and all citations should come directly after punctuation marks,[like this] without spaces. [not this] Next, I'd recommend reducing the size of the people images. They look cruddy at their large size. Also, I solved the earlier curious lack of interwikis. There's already an article about this conflict at Caucasian War. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not the same thing, as explained in the article. Also please see my above comment regarding the citations, so that citations aren't overwritten with refname's when they are actually linking to different sources. SGGH 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Impressive responsiveness. Oppose needs copyediting throughout. I recognize this may have been written by non-native speakers, but this is supposed to be our best work. Some of the copyediting has nothing to do with language skills but is just careless.
 * Infobox: Russian strength 200,000, casualties 1,500,000. How is that again? removed for now, will search for more accurate figre, however it is possible to maintain a strength of 200,000 over 101 years of war and loose 1,500,000 isn't it?
 * You removed that, but left the similar issue with circassian str. Tell you what, just cite a source for each figure, and I'll accept, OK?
 * 778 years prior to 1763[4] when in 985 - do we really need to have the math done? Rephrase. fixed
 * Prince Sviatoslav, General Yermolov, Prince Mstislav, Princedom of Tamatarkha - seem like important figures who should be wikilinked fixed
 * Partly, but not completely. For example, you wikilink the second occurrence of Sviatoslav, not the first, and the link should probably include the "Prince". Same for Mstislav. You don't link Yermolov in the text at all - is he the guy linked in the infobox? You don't link Kasogia Better that it was, but not perfect.
 * Yermolov was linked in the prose. I have fixed the others bar Kasogia


 * Circassian cavalry - a bit late to wikilink Circassian fixed
 * In October 1809, - don't wikilink October fixed
 * 30,000 Russian soldiers; army of 11'000 men - pick one number style fixed
 * Not quite. "Russian figures stand at 300'000" (in citation 3) fixed
 * 43, 247 Circassians, - spacing I can't find where this is, can you point it out?
 * Previous hostilities, third paragraph; it was faster just to fix it myself. :-)
 * I find it very worrying that I could just not see that! Thanks. SGGH speak! 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cape Adler; Cape Alder - typo? fixed
 * it was not until 5:00 in the afternoon that the Circassians were beaten back from their positions, the landing had begun at 10:00 that morning and the Russian suffered many casualties in oe of their few major upsets of the conflict. - incoherent, reorder, typo fixed, but still not 100% happy with this sentence
 * Suggestion: At Taupse, one of the fiercest battles of the conflict, the Russian landing had begun at 10:00 in the morning, and the Circassians were not beaten back from their positions until 5:00 in the afternoon, with the Russians suffering heavy casualties. thanks for the suggestion, have taken it up
 * Liko ... divided his fortress in half - did this have an effect on the battle? Did he pick the right half? he decided that with the size of his command he could only afford to defend one half, though its my understanding that he was unlikely to hold the fort no matter what he did he was severely outnumbered, have reworded to maek clearer
 * Later that year, the Russian Tsesarevich - any real need to use an obscure term when the person's name will do? fixed
 * With Russia's overwhelming economic and military superiority, surviving Circassian leaders saw little chance. In 1840 alone, for instance, Russian estimates for artilliery cartridge expenditure was 11,344, and musket cartridges 1,206,575 - incoherent, misspelled fixed
 * Great Prince Michail - again seems a notable character, wikilink. Or is this yet another name for someone who has been mentioned before? fixed
 * Ottoman Empire figured show - figures? fixed
 * many tribes were totally destructed. - destroyed? it is a direct quote, destructed was the word used by the historian Zaharyan
 * No offense, but I tend to doubt it. A Russian historian, writing about a Russian/Caucasian conflict, doing it in English? I'd suspect it was a poor translation from the Russian language. Are you just citing http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html? That's not a very good source, it doesn't give the book or article, date, nothing. erm.... it lists four sources right at the bottom
 * None of which are the historian Zaharyan, which makes it not a very good source at least for that particular quote, I hope you'll agree.
 * the Ageyan public organizations; Adygean (Circassian) people - which is it? fixed
 * No, not fixed. I'm referring to the last paragraph of "Civilian casualties", though of course you should do a full text search for other occurrences. erm... it is the last paragraph that I am looking at, there is no text in brackets anywhere I've left it at Adygean
 * "In October 2006, the Ageyan public organizations of Russia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Syria, the USA, Belgium, Canada and Germany sent the president of the European Parliament a letter with the request to recognize the genocide against Adygean people, one of the ethnic groups in Circassia." - I bolded what I'm referring to, pick one spelling! Also probably need a "the" before the second one. Ah im following you, I thought you were talking about the bracketed text
 * stated in May 1994 statement - phrase needs rephrase of its phrasing haha, fixed
 * In 1911, 216,950 Circassians were found in Armenia during a census - makes it sound like they were hiding fixed
 * An exile map here - what's an exile map? Also, what makes this a reliable source? fixed, its from the circassian historical organisation 'CBA' in new york
 * An map -> a map done
 * Circassian decent - as opposed to Circassian indecent? fixed
 * The depleted Circassian lands - depopulated, perhaps? Depleted lands usually mean they were over-farmed or mined or something fixed
 * with Turkish commanders fleeing under the protection of Circassian forces, such as on April 29, 1807 when the fortress of Anapa fell to Russian forces and the Turkish Pasha fled along with the Circassians. - yeesh. Surely Turkish sources wouldn't put it like that I have changed it to "fighting alongside the circassians, though that might not have been what you meant Yes, that was what I meant; no reason to take passing shots at the Turkish military.
 * constructing the Labinski Line in 1840 - what's the Labinski Line? Wikilink would be good here. it was just a name for a chain of new defensive positions, not notable alone for an article
 * and beginning to develop a new form of scout, known as a plastun. - what's so special about a plastun? Wikilink would be good here. fixed
 * the Russian navy captured an English merchant ship supplying ammunition to the Circassians, supplies which helped inspire the remaining free Circassians - if the ship was captured, how did the Circassians get the supplies? Rephrase fixed
 * General Volkhovskiin; General Volkhovski - are these two different people? fixed, its volkhovski
 * May 13 - wikilink this, per WP:DATE fixed
 * an Russian Orthodox Chaplain - a fixed
 * defection of exiled Poles to the Circassian cause - was this a significant number? Why were there Poles in Circassia? i believe they were exiled there before the conflict, but i doubt it is of major significance, so have removed it
 * Half of them needed to be crashed - crushed? killed? fixed
 * Aside from a question of possible genocide which is still debated today,[38] - we just had a section on that, move this phrase there fixed
 * Some sources; Other sources - WP:WEASEL this appears to have been fixed already unless im looking a the wrong one
 * as far a field - afield fixed
 * This was one of three defensive lines which were built during the whole conflict, which were: the Caucasian Line in 1780, The Chernomorski Cordon Line in 1793, and the Sunja Line in 1817. - capitalization, wikilinks, explain what a Line was. A bunch of forts? Seems to need a map. fixed, none of the lines have article,s Sunja is an area in Croatia now, I will try to find a map but sources are tricky
 * Still capitalization - why The Chernomorski? because it's a name, like Caen, or Belgium, or the Maginot Line
 * Sorry, without a citation of usage, I still disagree. Note it's the Caucasian Line, not The Caucasian Line, the Maginot Line not The Maginot Line...
 * I did it myself. :-)
 * The latter two periods were those during which the Russian military concerned itself with forays into, and the later invasion and occupation of, western Circassia, known as Minor Kabardia and inhabited by numerous tribes, particularly the Abkhazs themselves. - So, readable, becomes, rephrase, reorder, and, this. fixed
 * Not stopping because I'm done, just because I'm tired. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, give me a little time and I'll deal with all those. Please come back later if you have more comments, I want to catch every chink as the peer review and so on weren't too much help. SGGH 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have addressed a number of the above points, and will continue with the others after a break! SGGH 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More issues, mostly nitpicks (I said I wasn't done, just tired!)
 * June 2, 1864, (May 21, O.S.). - remove comma before parentheses done
 * ended with the signing of several Russian loyalty oaths by, among others, Circassian leaders - I'd remove "among others," as you don't go into who the others are. Or you can replace with Circassian and Caucasian or Caucasian and Ottoman or something - more information for the same wordage. done
 * September 6, June 6, possibly others - wikilink per WP:DATE in my last FAC I was told not to wikilink lone days without years, but I'll do as you say this time :)
 * You haven't done it yet: WP:DATE is pretty clear.
 * Ottoman Empire; Ottoman empire - pick one capitalization, probably the former They all seem to be Empire that I can find... '
 * "Russia hoped to cripple the Ottoman empire as well as the trading interests of Great Britain."
 * Did it myself. :-)
 * Bosphorus and the Dardanelles - wikilink them in the article text preceding the quote, not in the quote. Also link Black Sea. fixed
 * 227,000 sheep[6] - unless that cite is merely for the sheep, I'd move it to the end of the sentence done
 * General note - the numbers of sheep involved are cited several times, which isn't the sort of thing you usually expect in military history articles. Why were sheep particularly important? Why not pigs, goats, cows, oxen, camels? Probably not worth a whole section, but at least one sentence explaining why "counting sheep" was particularly important would probably be useful somewhere. well i suspect that sheep's milk was important, but I don't have any sources on that. I simply quote sheep because sheep are what the sources quoted, they don't mention why they quoted sheep that I could see
 * Well, then, frankly, I'd remove them. I won't oppose over just this, but editorial decision is all about including important things and not including unimportant things, and if you don't know why it's important (by the way, once you've read enough about a subject to write a Featured Article on it, you're at least something like an expert!), there's a fair chance it's not important. I sympathise with your opinion, but personally I would choose to leave them in at the moment because its information, the lack of facts about the conflict in general mean that every statistic like that is valuable, we can debate the mention of specific animals but when grouped together they paint a quantitative picture
 * Looking again, you also have cattle. I'll accept that.
 * Previous hostilities - I'd combine the first two paragraphs into one. They're really on one idea, "when did the war really start". 5 sentences is not too long for a single paragraph . done
 * Events of the war - I'd similarly combine the first two paragraphs into one done
 * Tuapse ; Taupse - which one? Seems to be the former according to our article, if so, wikilink. fixed
 * River Sochi, Subash, Gunib, others - Wikilink and/or provide a map showing as many as possible, please, so we can get an idea of the locations involved I have linked Sochi to the city through which it flows, the others don't have article
 * http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html is cited in two different cites (34, 35) should be one. done
 * I'm not sure you understood what I mean there; I merely meant use so the reference would appear once in the references list, and the link to it would appear twice in the article text. But just deleting one is OK too. I new what you meant, but both lines were so close one source was fine.
 * What's more, it isn't a very good source, doesn't give book or article name, publication date, full name of several historians, and I strongly question the English language skills of the translator. I'd recommend striking it, and all entries that depend solely on it, entirely. Seeing as they are historians, I could ref the history books themselves but I can't speak russian, to the translation is what I have to go by. If I removed the quotes it hampers the section quite a bit
 * Looks like we might have to agree to disagree on this one; I personally think that one page of poorly cited fragments from many books is not good enough to cite for much. On the other hand, you're not using it to cite much, just a relatively small section of the article, so I won't oppose strictly based on that, as your other sources seem better. If it were entirely gone, it would still be fairly clear that a hundred years of continuous warfare isn't going to be a nice thing to the people living in the region. I removed it in the end, found some trustworthy cites
 * A Russian Historian - lower case H->h. fixed
 * Karl Friedrich Neumann - wikilink. He seems to be much more of what we mean by a reliable source than http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html - not that he's necessarily right, just that he has more of a reputation. done
 * merchant ship was part of an on going -> ongoing fixed
 * Russian commanders, by Colonel Olshevski - remove "by" fixed
 * A new one - "Occupation of Eastern Circassia" but "Forays into western Circassia" - pick a consistent capitalization. fixed
 * Not completely, but I did the rest myself.

I'm striking my opposition, you are responding very thoroughly. If you can fix the rest (and if I don't come up with other nitpicks by that time!) I'll support. If you just can't get them all (for example, you seem to be set on the reliability of that page on Circassian World) I'll support weakly, or at least I won't oppose strongly. -AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Im interested to discuss the issue of how reliable that source is. It is collected on the same site maintained by the CBA that the historians who published some of the articles I cite from work with. It's a list rather than opinion, and I could cite from the books themselves if I could speak Russian. I'll try to google some alternatives or solutions. Thanks for all your help!
 * I have found a source that discusses the 'genocide' and have removed the questionable quotes. I hope you are pleased with how I have addressed your points! SGGH speak! 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Supporting. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, Damn good article and I'm confident that you will cover and fix the areas as requested above. Tony the Marine 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, Nice and interesting well-documented article with proper references and good images and maps. It really worth making it a featured article! Eurocopter tigre 11:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article is indeed well-written, but I have never heard that the land inhabited by the Abkhaz people was called Minor Kabardia (Events of the War section; second paragraph). Is the term supposed to be synonymous with Abkhazia? If yes, are there any credible sources for that? Thanks, KoberTalk 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it may have been related. Thought without a source I'm sure if I can change it, the sources are rather confusing in places, and it's particularly hard as not many of the regions or countries mentioned exist anymore, and that there were so many tribes and ethnic groups. SGGH speak! 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did some googling on that. There are very few (if any) English-language sources available on Minor Kabardia, but I found quite a few references in Russian, including this insightful article about the Russian-North Caucasian relations. Minor Kabardia (also spelled Minor Kabarda) appears to have been located on the both sides of the Terek River where the Circassians arrived in the 12th-13th centuries. Following the Circassian ethnic cleansing, the area was populated by the Ossetians and Ingush peoples. It is now part of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. Several posts at the Adyge Forum also confirm this version. Hence, Minor Kabardia's geographical or ethnic connection with Abkhazia sounds somewhat unplausible. I think this particular passage needs to be somehow fixed. Cheers, --KoberTalk 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate that dammed paragraph, I scrapped it in the end and re-wrote it in a far simpler format hoping that it works better. Sometimes flowing prose just can't handle massive influxes of data. SGGH speak! 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.