This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olympian (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 28 November 2024 (fix and reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:30, 28 November 2024 by Olympian (talk | contribs) (fix and reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour
( )
Ruins of the Armenian quarter of Shusha after its destruction by the Azerbaijani army in March 1920.
- ... that after signing a peace agreement in 1919, Azerbaijan prepared another invasion of southern Armenia which was foiled by a rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh?
- Source: Saparov, Arsène (2014). From conflict to autonomy in the Caucasus: the Soviet Union and the making of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh. Routledge.
- Reviewed:
Olympian 00:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC).
Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is not required. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Thriley and Olympian: This is a really interesting subject. I have several concerns for WP:DYKCOMPLETE and WP:NPOV before promotion:
- Until World War I, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire controlled the Caucasus, and both collapsed during the war. At least some mention of this would help readers unfamiliar with the region understand the situation better. Right now, I only see this hinted at with "attaining independence from Russia".
- Regarding "In 1920, the region was invaded by units of the Red Army" why is this in the background, when it discusses events events after the agreement is signed?
- Regarding "In March 1920, the local Armenians revolted with the support of Armenia" the same as above, why include this in the background section?
- Saparov (2014) mentions militias in Nagorno-Karabakh throughout this conflict, I don't see these mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article. So when it says "the local Armenians", is this referring a widespread uprising or an ongoing military conflict with those militia groups?
- The article quotes a historian saying the agreement was "basically a declaration of intent". Can this article expand on that? What is a declaration of intent? Do historians find evidence that either side intended to build any kind of long-term diplomatic relationship from this? The "Aftermath" section seems to imply the opposite.
- Does the Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan render this agreement moot? It occurs just weeks after the final line of the "Aftermath" section.
- Rjj (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rjjiii, I implemented your feedback/exceptions. With regard to the Saparov source, I'm not sure of your concern as he describes the local Armenians who were involved in the rebellion as "rebels" from pages 94–95. The militias, by my understanding, largely operated in Zangezur (a neighbouring, albeit isolated, Armenian-controlled province) which was more-less a part of Armenia at the time. – Olympian 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- That resolved all of my concerns. Thanks! Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rjjiii, I implemented your feedback/exceptions. With regard to the Saparov source, I'm not sure of your concern as he describes the local Armenians who were involved in the rebellion as "rebels" from pages 94–95. The militias, by my understanding, largely operated in Zangezur (a neighbouring, albeit isolated, Armenian-controlled province) which was more-less a part of Armenia at the time. – Olympian 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Thriley and Olympian: This is a really interesting subject. I have several concerns for WP:DYKCOMPLETE and WP:NPOV before promotion:
@Rjjiii, Thriley, and Olympian: this hook is far over the maximum of 200 characters. Please either trim the content considerably or provide a new hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, AirshipJungleman29 – I've reduced the character count after the ellipsis to exactly 200 characters. I hope that this is suitable. Best, – Olympian 08:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not really—the purpose of WP:DYK200 is to ensure the hook is focused upon the bolded article, whereas this hook seems like it tries to include as mmuch tangential information as possible; still, a promoter has the discretion to trim quite a lot—probably everything after "Armenia"—so I'll restore the tick . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, I've condensed it even more and trimmed the tangential bit to make the hook overall more relevant to the bolded article; I feel the 'rebellion' bit is necessary to make the hook more interesting and provide context – let me know if you think it's not useful here. Thanks, – Olympian 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not really—the purpose of WP:DYK200 is to ensure the hook is focused upon the bolded article, whereas this hook seems like it tries to include as mmuch tangential information as possible; still, a promoter has the discretion to trim quite a lot—probably everything after "Armenia"—so I'll restore the tick
- Thanks, AirshipJungleman29 – I've reduced the character count after the ellipsis to exactly 200 characters. I hope that this is suitable. Best, – Olympian 08:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
