Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2021 [1].

---

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A second nomination here. I had this nominated a few months ago, but due to some personal events was unable to address comments and it was closed. I'm now back and ready to go, and addressed comments from the first nomination. That said, the TDFR was a month-long state that existed in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution in the South Caucasus. It was a union of the three main ethnic groups there, and was never a viable state, spending its entire existence negotiation an end to the Ottoman Empire's invasion. With that in mind, it's not a conventional country article, as the TDFR was not a conventional country, and is more a history of the events at this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Image review pass per the last FAC. Glad to see this back here! (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through (both sets, as the case has been). And glad to be here again and ready to follow through. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ping participants on the last nomination: LouisAragon, FunkMonk in case you have any input. (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I believe I reviewed the entire article last time around, but it's a bit difficult to get an overview of the changes without point by point responses. Would it make sense to copy my points from the old FAC here so you could comment on them, or have they all just been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I worked to address everything you noted before, but if you see anything not done please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Few more things below, repeating some of the older points. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• German Empire is now linked twice in the intro.

This seems to have somehow disappeared, not sure how... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• As last, does O.S. have to be linked at every mention?

For the dates, that is something I wanted to get the opinion of reviewers on. I'm fine going with either using the OS/NS mention each time, or only once; not sure if there's a standard for that here.

Hmmm, I don't have strong feelings about it, just looks a bit funny. Maybe someone else will chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I do agree, and like I said I'm not committed to the style as is. I do have the note about the dates (currently note b), which may be enough, but I'm also familiar with the issues of dates in this era/topic and realize others aren't, so didn't want to just go with it until I gather some feedback. It is clunky though. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Still some names and places left that could be linked in image captions?

Believe they are all linked now. If there's something I'm missing please let me know.

Maybe also Caucasus and British Army? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, linked those. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• "However they were concerned that the local population, who were mostly Muslims" is/was the Caucasus really majority Muslim?

That refers to the people of eastern Anatolia, who at that point would have been majority Muslim.

• "however there were three major local groups: Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, while Russians had also established themselves after the Russian Empire absorbed the area." Linki each ethnicity here at first mention outside the intro?

Thanks, thought I had that done already. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think this looks good now, and I've double checked all my points from the previous FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both for supporting and reviewing (twice, as it is). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from LouisAragon

• I will have another thorough view tomorrow or so. Had a cursory glance and I noticed you edited the first sentence of the body. Looks much better now IMO. Also, I just added two notes (one in the lede, one in the body) which I believe are pretty important in helping our readers obtain a better understanding of the situation's complexity. Feel free to remove one if you think a single mention is sufficient. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree that is something worth noting. I did remove the second note though, as I think it's sufficient to have once in the lead. Looking forward to your comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Its been some time, I know, and excuse me for that. I had another full, thorough read today which has led me to conclude that the article is well-written and well-referenced and is embedded in a proper structure. The changes and fixes you carried out greatly improved the overal quality of the article. Other than one lousy interpunction fix[2] and one WP:MOS change,[3] I was unable to spot anything else at this point. Glad to support this nomination. Great job! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: Kaiser matias: Actually, on a second thought, there is one minor thing, which I believe should/could be addressed whenever you have time; ref nr. 17 cites Thomas de Waal for the Armenian genocide figures. Although de Waal is considered to be a regional expert, he is still a journalist by education and not a historian. Furthermore, he has been accused by the Armenian side for being supposedly non-neutral (see, f.e., the material listed at Black Garden). I suggest removing de Waal from that sentence, and instead using the casualty figures listed at Armenian genocide, a GA-class article written by our colleague Buidhe. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I modified the citation to use the one from the genocide article itself, and modified the figure in the text to reflect this. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chipmunkdavis

• The first sentence has decreased in quality since I reviewed this at GAN. "included territories of the present-day" is a lot less specific, and feels somewhat misleading considering in some cases it was almost all of the territory.

Agreed, and that was not a change I made, and one that does make it weaker. I've re-worded it to note it included most of the three states mentioned

• Is there a way to shift the mention of the First World War to earlier in the lead, to contextualise "peace talks with the Ottoman Empire"?

I reworked it a bit, let me know if you think that will do.

• Is the German support for Georgian independence due such emphasis in the lead? The article text seems to suggest the only intervention they made was to have a meeting at an embassy, with the final point being Von Lossow consulting with the government.

No, I think that can be cut.

• A sentence reflecting the legacy section would help the lead reflect the entirety of the article.

Added

• Is the new note [c] "Now the capital of Azerbaijan" needed? That's a long line to draw through time, and the city is wikilinked. If the note mentioned it became the capital of the immediately subsequent independent Azerbaijan it would fit the context, although I'm still not sure it would be necessary.

That was somethign @FunkMonk: noted in the previous FAC: "State what country this is in today, as with Georgia?". I do think it is worth noting that it is in a different modern country than Tbilisi is, as it further shows the ethnic diversity of the region.

• The phrase "which would not be subservient to Russia" seems a bit odd in the context of its section. Later it says "the Commissariat did not want to act independently of Russia". Should it specifically be not subservient to the Bolsheviks?

It should, thanks. Changed the wording.

• "sporadic attacks by Armenian militias on the Muslim population", is that sporadic attack on the Muslim population in the TDFR or in the Ottoman Empire? If in the TDFR, were these attacks actually happening, and if so did they have any domestic impact given the composition of the TDFR?

It was occupied Ottoman territory; clarified.

• The Establishment section is where the article suddenly switches from referring to the groups in the Sjem by ethnicity, to referring to them by party name (Dashnaks/Musavats/Mensheviks). Is there a reason for this switch? For Dashnak especially, I don't think a casual reader would instantly recognise it is a contraction of Dashnaktsutyun. The section also includes "the Georgians leading the debate", using ethnicity, making it internally inconsistent too. If it is important to refer to the party names here, perhaps they could have the ethnicities as adjectives, at least in this period of initial use?

It's a bit confusing I'll agree. For the most part each party did represent one ethnic group (Menshevik for Georgians; Dashnaks for Armenians; Musavat for Azerbaijanis) and are almost used as synonyms in sources, with some exceptions of course. I'd argue that for the political discussions that followed (and come up at this point), party identity was a more important qualifier, and it would be incorrect to not note that. But at the same time I agree it should be made clear, and switching without clarity is not good. I'll work on this, but if you have any thoughts I'm open to that as well.

• "the Ottoman issued an ultimatum to the defenders in Batum" is an instance of "the Ottoman" that should be fixed.

Fixed

• "Both sides thus invited observers". Is the "thus" accurate there? If so, how does it specifically relate to the decision not to have the central powers present?

Not really; I changed the wording, but I think it can be better.

• As mentioned above, if German intervention was so crucial, it does not come through to me in the German intervention subsection. Perhaps there is some historiography on the matter?

I don't think it needs more expansion at this point; the mention of it in the lead was added later on, and I don't agree that it fits here. For the article on the Georgian Democratic Republic it should get more coverage for sure (and I'd like to tackle that in the future), but I'm comfortable with it as is in this article.

• "effectively ending the conflict for good.[96] However Armenia continued to fight" feels like a contradiction. If the fighting shifted to Georgia and Azerbaijan, I'm not sure it is correct to say they "continued" to fight, as the previous fight was with the Ottoman Empire. "continued" also contradicts "for good".

Agreed; I changed the wording to make it less contradictory.

• "Under Bolshevik rule the three successor states would be forceibly reunited within the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, this would only exist between 1922 and 1936 before being broken up again into three union republics." This is quite a long sentence, could it be split at the comma? Further, not sure the "only" is applicable here, 14 years is not that short a time compared to one month.

Good point. I also added the Soviet states that were created on the break-up; feel that is worth mentioning.

Let me know if these comments/questions make sense, best, CMD (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have two queries of my own (about Baku, and the ethnicity/party designator). Let me know if you have anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi CMD. I was wondering whether you felt in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to come back to this. Regarding Kaiser matias' questions, I would prefer the Baku footnote feel a bit more pertinent and less like random trivia, but am not going to oppose over it. I do think the transition from ethnic groups to political parties needs to be fixed however. Having the Georgians leading the debate" and "Davit Oniashvili, a Menshevik," close together with no transition doesn't feel like clear writing. I would perhaps provide a small explanation on first use in the Establishment section, such as "the mostly-Armenian Dashanks felt that...". CMD (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the feedback. I did add some more context there, so hopefully that makes it better. Let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's better. I am happy to support along 1abcde, 2abc, and 4. CMD (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your review and support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Lead

• "lived state in" link "state", it has masses of different meanings.

Good point, added

• "declared independence" is there a link for that?

Not in English (yet; something I would like to work on), but a Georgian interwiki link has been added

• " a Provisional Government took" this is captalised but it's not the formal name so I'd expect it to be in sentence case.

Fixed

• "the Ottoman Empire, who had invaded the region, in March 1918, " too many clauses, maybe "the Ottoman Empire in March 1918, who had invaded the region, "

Done

• "in the War" again, sentence case.

Fixed

• "to continue on" no need for "on".

Fixed

• "Georgian Democratic Republic " our article calls it the "Democratic Republic of Georgia". Which was the correct formal name in English?

The latter is more commonly used. I've adjusted

• "to it's short" its

Done

• "towards their own " who is "their" here?

I removed the "their own", which should clarify

Background

• "A Caucasian Viceroyalty " what does that mean?

Clarified

• "the administration was reformed" which administration?

Clarifeid

• "city of significance" in what sense?

Tiflis and Baku were the only cities that had any significant population (relatively speaking). In the case of Tiflis it was the administrative centre, while Baku only became important when oil became a factor. If you have any thoughts on how to word that better I'm open to suggestions.

• Which version of English is this article? I see "theatre" and yet I see "recognized", "jeopardized" etc.

Canadian (as am I), so it's going to be a mix. I'm not tied to any one variant though, and open to making things consistent.

No worries, perhaps add a {{Canadian English}} template to the article to stop other editors asking the same thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I've added that.

• "Armenians, launching the Armenian genocide by" repetitive, and for me "launching" a genocide" is a weird way of putting it. Perhaps "commenced"? Or "initiated"?

Done

• "Grand Duke Nicholas" piped to a redirect which is a little odd.

Didn't catch that before, thanks

• "yet he was forced to resign his post" why?

The dissolution of the imperial government; I've clarified

• "acroynm, Ozakom[e] on" comma before the footnote.

Done. Also closed the parenthesis that were missing there.

• "in Petrograd[f], " horrible, put the footnote after the comma.

Fixed

• "with soviets (councils).[24]" reads odd, perhaps make a footnote to explain what lower case soviets mean.

Done

• " Menshevik Noe Jordania, " this is a sea of blue, as a non-expert I had no idea there were two links there.

Moved Jordania's name to clear things up.

• "was not able to govern strongly" why not?

That's noted in the next clause; I replaced the semi-colon with a colon to help clarify.

• "comprised some ten different" why "some ten"?

Not sure honestly, removed

• "Sovnarkom[h]).[36]" again, horrible markup. Maybe just chuck [h] before [36].

Fixed

• Link Anatolia.

Done

• " 2 March, however" feels like two sentences.

Done

• "a former Russian general now following " now??

Changed

• "Trebizond Peace Conference" appears to be capitalised.

Done

• And why "finally"?

There had been delays, but still not worth keeping the word, so removed

• "the October Revolution central" comma after Revolution.

Done

Takes me to "Formation". More soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Have addressed everything so far. One query above for you, and appreciate the commentary so far. Looking forward to more. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Formation

• "Right after the voting..." reads a little odd, maybe "Immediately after" or "As soon as the voting..."?

Changed to "Immediately"

• "potential negotiation" anything come of that?

No, noted.

• "not willing to" -> "unwilling to"

Changed

• "whose member" makes it sound like the party had only one member?

Clarified

• "finished, Davit Oniashvili, a Menshevik, proposed" reads odd, should the sentence start with a "When"?

Done

• I'm sure it's down to transliteration or similar, but our article has Erzurum not Erzerum.

It does look like "Erzerum" was the name used previously (I want to say under the Ottoman Empire), and it likely switched to "Erzurum" when Turkey was established (part of the Turkification campaign; similar to Constantinople becoming Istanbul), but I can't confirm that, and neither does the article on the city doesn't say anything at all. The sources do list it as "Erzerum", so I'm inclined to keep that, and perhaps add a note about the modern name?

A cited footnote would be great. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Done

• "The first agenda in" item on the agenda?

Yes, fixed

• "Akaki Chkhenkeli served..." image caption is a full sentence so needs a full stop.

Done

• "the TDFT effectively" TDFR

Thanks, fixed

• "the Dashnaks initially refused to join the cabinet. The Dashnaks negotiated" -> "the Dashnaks initially refused to join the cabinet. They negotiated"

Fixed

• "Kars-Julfa" I think that should be an en-dash.

""Done

• "of Bash Abarn (21–24 May), Sardarapat (21–29 May) and Kara Killisse (24–28 May), but could" I don't think the years should be part of the pipelinks.

Do you mean the dates? There are no years there.

Sorry yes, I meant dates. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it, and removed.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Dissolution et seq

• "though this ... Though the..." bit repetitive.

Changed second mention to "While the..."

• "German and Ottoman Empires were nominally allies, German opinion towards them ..." "them" doesn't read quite right here, which "them"?

Reworded to be clearer

• " a Declaration of Independence" that just links to a general article so it shouldn't be capitalised.

True, done

• "meet Von Lossow.[93] Von Lossow replied" repetitive.

Reworded

• "both Armenia and Azerbaijan making" the links here are Easter eggy for me, perhaps a gentle reword to make it clearer?

I've done some rewording, let me know what you think.

• "wars with both Azerbaijan" similar, I would pipelink all of that.

You mean include the years linked with the country? If so I did that, but please correct me if I misunderstood

Ok, my apologies, I mean to have "wars with both Azerbaijan" linked and the years outside the pipe. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Irakli Tsereteli gave..." image caption is a complete sentence so could use a full stop.

Done

• Both the "see also" links are already linked in the article.

Yes they are; removed that section

• Note E seems to have a spare )

Fixed

• Did Saint Petersburg ever have an h on it?

No, fixed

• Ref 89 needs to be pp.

Fixed

• ISBNs are usually formatted similarly.

Sorry I don't get this. From what I can tell they are all good, but am I missing something?

I thought some were 10- and some 13-digit. I could be wrong mind you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Took another look, and I think they're all 13-digit (for those that have ISBN, of course).

• Three categories about "communism" but that term doesn't feature anywhere in the article.

True, removed

That's all I have I think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC) ::Thanks for the additional comments. Should have it all addressed by the end of the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Again, thanks for going over everything in such detail. I believe I addressed everything, with a couple queries for you above. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Kaiser matias you're very welcome. I've replied to everything I think needed my input. Let me know if I missed anything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Last few points addressed, so I think we're good now. Unless you see anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, happy to support the nomination, well done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks again for your work. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

A non-expert review for prose.

• " on 22 March 1917 [O.S. 9 March]; composed of Caucasian" Since this sentence is quite long, I recommend that this semi-colon become a period.

Turned the semi-colon into a period, that should help.

• "The unusually large delegation was made up of individuals selected more to represent the diverse composition of the Seim, with its various ethnic groups and political factions;" -> "The unusually large delegation was made up of individuals selected to represent the diverse ethnic groups and political factions that composed the Seim" ?

Works for me; changed

• "Chkhenkeli clarified that since the October Revolution..." This is a very long sentence that should be split into two.

Broke that up.

• "To this end, on 20 March the Ottoman delegates offered that only if the Seim were to declare independence, thereby confirming that Transcaucasus was no longer part of Russia, could they return to negotiations." -> "On 20 March the Ottoman delegates offered that the Seim could only return to negotiations if they declared independence, thereby confirming that Transcaucasus was no longer part of Russia."

Done.

• "The first item on the agenda in front of the TDFR was to form a cabinet to lead the new government." Was this a literal agenda, or a MOS:IDIOM that should be reworded?

I can't confirm it was literally the first thing, so modified the wording.

I made some changes as I read, mostly concerning commas. Please let me know if anything is reverted. It was a very interesting read. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Have addressed everything here, but if you see anymore just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My concerns are addressed; I support. I should note that I also made minor changes to the article as I readthrough, mostly stuff with phrasing. Feel free to revert if unhelpful. A very interesting read. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• Why does Bournoutian not have a publisher location?

Added

• "Russia in Flames: War, Revolutio, Civil War 1914–1921" - typo?

Yep, fixed

• Hasanli: why is the title not in title case?

That's how the book writes it; see Google Books and I have a pdf copy as well showing the same

It doesn't matter. The MoS requires that all book titles be given in title case, regardless of how the book names itself.

Got it, wasn't aware of that, but fixed.

• Uratadze should give the language.

Thought that was there already; added

• Uratadze (2011) needs adding to the bibliography.

I don't see that anywhere?

Very strange. Me neither.Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• "known by its Russian acroynm, Ozakom". "Ozakom" is not an acronym and the source given doesn't claim that it is.

No that should be "abbreviation"; fixed.

• "Some deputies left the chamber in order to avoid voting against the matter". The source says "to avoid voting in favour of the motion".

I believe that was modified to not directly copy Hovannisian's words; I've re-worked it to stay true to the source while trying to not copy him, let me know if that works

That is perennially tricky, but hopefully you can see why paraphrasing voting in favour to voting against rang a bell. It is fine now.

• "so for four days the TDFR effectively had no executive." The source says it was a "three-day interval".

That would be a miscount on my part, fixed.

Counting the dates makes a possible four days, but a little later the source specifies a "three-day interval" so probably best to stick with that.

Gog the Mild (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.

Addressed these, but if you see any more just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

All looks good. Tweak the Hasanli title and I think we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks again for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.