Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Shusha (2020)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shusha (2020)

Nominator(s): -- --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to promote it to a GA. Though I think a A-Class pass first would be better thing to do. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really shouldn't be here. The battle just happened a few months ago, the sort of retrospective scholarly sources we usually look for have not been written yet. This is also an issue with stability, since the article should change as more sources are written and more information becomes available. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to greatly expand the article with over two hundred refs cited. Though this article also cites some scholarly articles, it mostly relies on media (international, regional, and local). I didn't knew (and still don't think) that we needed to use scholarly sources only, as this and this GA basically only referenced media. If I'm wrong about it, please explain so. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 05:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, though you might be right. Azerbaijan still hasn't provided details of the operation. And Azerbaijan hasn't specified its losses during the operation. There's also the process of scholarly work about it. This is just a bummer for me --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with buidhe. It seems premature to bring this here for an A-Class review given the comparatively recent nature of the engagement. In addition, looking at the talk page, I see potential for stability issues. Regarding your comment about other GA articles being based largely on referenced media, sourcing is much more closely scrutinised at A-Class than it is at GA. This leads onto the point that it is discouraged to have articles being concurrently reviewed for GA and A-Class. Each has differing standards/criteria and so changes in response to comments by a GA reviewer could clash with what is called for by an A-Class reviewer. Zawed (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed, thank you for your feedback. I got it now. Also, the editor who had major problems with the article was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 02:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than have this article remain on the list for A-class review while it is still pending a GA review, I propose to close it as a fail for now. It can be renominated for A-class review once it has reached GA status. I will do this in the next day or so if there are no objections. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I hope the GA outcome is favourable and we see this back here soon. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.