Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh War

Nagorno-Karabakh War

This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Quotes should not be italicized, per the MoS.
Fair use images need to have a clearly identified copyright holder, source information and a fair use rationale (Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg, Image:Shilka AA.JPG, Image:Khojaly Massacre.jpg, Image:366th and Weapons.jpg, Image:Sumgaitrioting.jpg). Fair use images should be used as little as possible.
Images are missing source info Image:Nkr-army6.jpg, Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg
Image:Damage to Stepanakert.jpg; what sort of permission was actually given for the use of this image?

--Peta 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done
All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here [1]. The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website [2] gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Wikipedia contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here [3].

Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral contributors raised problems with the prose, sources (too many news articles) and the length of the article in the last nomination. Bias and POV issues weren't among them and even they told you this. All of the books used are academic, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion that they compromise any of the facts. --MarshallBagramyan 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above two oppose comments are ambiguous at best and seem to be there for the sake of opposing only. Unless they are expanded upon they oughta be disregarded.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All quotations should have citations, and whoever said each quotation should not be included within the quotation marks. —Cuiviénen 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The content contains historical distortions and verbal manipulations while using sources in order to create an impression that NK used to be part of Armenia and was transferred to Azerbaijan by accident (which is nonsense, like 2+2=5). Definitely, within the framework of this concept, it cannot deserve being published. Lacks honest interpretation of archival materials. --Batabat 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]