Talk:Nazran uprising/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. asilvering (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: WikiEditor1234567123 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I plan to get to this by this weekend. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm looking forward to it, thanks for starting the review! Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 22:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123, I've started the review but already run into a problem - there's basically no evidence for "Nazran uprising" in English, so we appear to have the wrong name for it. Can you find out what it's actually referred to by in English-language history works? -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Russian sources for the article as they're more broad on the topic, but English sources also call it the Nazran uprising, this one for example. WikiEditor^123… 20:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a full citation, so it's not particularly helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the full citation is Karpov, Yuriy (2003). "Images of Violence in Modern and Recent History of the Peoples of the North Caucasus". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 41 (4). I think it's now established that English sources also use the name "Nazran uprising". WikiEditor^123… 14:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering what's the next step? I think it's been now established that reliable English sources mention the name. WikiEditor^123… 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to have a look at that article and do the rest of the review. Unfortunately what we're waiting for is for me to have enough migraine-free time to get to all the things I need to do that involve looking at screens. I'm triaging at the moment. -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a speedy recovery from migraine! Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123 I made it through, finally. Sorry about the delay. Lots of questions for you to work through. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123, I've seen your comments and don't want to leave you hanging, but I'm a bit busy right now - I should get to this by the end of this weekend. Sorry! -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not a problem at all. I'll wait. WikiEditor^123… 06:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By the end of this weekend"... famous last words. Working on this now, though. -- asilvering (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok, it turns out this one isn't great since it's a direct translation of a Russian-language article (that is, the translator may well have done just what we've done, and translated the typical Russian usage directly). Perhaps we aren't finding an answer because it's basically just ignored in English-language scholarship? But that would be strange. You said earlier that you used Russian sources because they're more broad on the topic - could you share some citations for the narrower English-language things you were thinking of? And while I'm at it, from your userpage you appear to be one of four (wow, haha) people on wikipedia who are native Ingush speakers, so I'll have to take your word for it: is there a preference for any one of the names we have listed in the article that is preferred in the Ingush language? -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable. - significant verifiability concerns
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General queries

I see there are no English-language sources on this article. This is probably a problem for 3a, "broad in its coverage", and maybe also for some of the other criteria. Additionally it appears to be a problem with the title of the article. I find effectively no sources for "Nazran uprising" in google scholar, or in google books that predate Wikipedia. I doubt this is never written about in English - so what is it called? -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what's the issue here. Wikipedia doesn't prohibit the usage of non-English sources, not to mention there are no English sources that write about the uprising in detail. Regarding the name, I have provided this English source to you: Karpov, Yuriy (2003). "Images of Violence in Modern and Recent History of the Peoples of the North Caucasus". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 41 (4) which mentions Nazran uprising. WikiEditor^123… 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiEditor1234567123, you gave me that source after I asked this question, which you can see clearly from the timestamps. It's fine to use non-English sources. If none of them deal with the subject in detail, then it isn't a 3a problem, and you don't need to worry about that. But can you provide any more that are English-language and deal with it in less detail than you'd like? What I'm trying to understand here is a) what context is this event usually placed in, in English-language historiography, and b) if there is general acceptance of "Nazran Uprising" in English, or if there is no standard translation at all. This is also relevant for the prose under the heading "Names", which currently implies that it's known by a wide variety of names in English. If it's only in Russian that it's known by these different names, that section ought to make that clearer (or maybe we can remove it entirely as irrelevant for English readers). -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I've clarified in the "Names" section that those various names are used in Russian literature, is that fine? WikiEditor^123… 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this works. I've changed it to "Russian sources" to make it clear that you're not referring to literature-as-in-fiction. -- asilvering (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazran uprising is known by various names... are these all "neutral" names? Or do any of them have any particular connotation? "Nazran outrage" in particular seems to me to imply some kind of point of view. If they're all just used basically interchangeably, fair enough. But it would be good to mention what kinds of people use which names, if there are any that align with any particular point of view or personal identity. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're pretty neutral I think. Nothing non-neutral, just names used in different sources. WikiEditor^123… 08:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, are any of these names historical? That is, did it used to be called "Nazran outrage" or whatever and that name is no longer used by historians? --
During the early 19th century, Ingush people formed small villages on the plains with several families in each. It would be helpful here to have a half-sentence or maybe a whole sentence that gives a bit more context. Who are the Ingush? Where are they from? When and how did this become part of the Russian Empire? Whatever you like, really, to give more context for why the Russian Empire is trying to control this population in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering wouldn't it be redundant to write something like During the early 19th century, the Ingush, a Caucasian people, formed small villages on the plains with several families in each? It looks kind of out of place. WikiEditor^123… 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be redundant. It also answers basically none of the example questions I suggested. -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've now written this:

The Ingush, are a people who mainly inhabit Ingushetia, today a republic in Russia.[1] Prior to the uprising, Russia had carried out military expeditions to Ingushetia like the 1830 expedition [ru] of General Ivan Abkhazov and the 1832 expedition of Baron Georgi Rozen.[2]. Is it now good? WikiEditor^123… 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started in on a source check and found some more helpful information to include. This is the kind of thing I meant by "to give more context for why the Russian Empire is trying to control this population in the first place". If you want to tinker with anything I just did or add something else, please do go ahead. -- asilvering (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Asilvering. I have checked your recent edits and this paragraph after having been displaced earlier in the conflict should be changed to beginning in 1845, Russian authorities displaced Ingush and built Cossack stanitsas on the site of their former villages in order to construct the Sunzha line because the construction of the villages in plain Ingushetia took place earlier than the eviction (for instance, Nazran, now a town, was founded in 1780s; Achaluki in 1820s). Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 14:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check, and sorry about that! Do go ahead and fix as you like. Sorry again for the delays - major deadline Thursday. Though I may end up clearing this source check out before then as a form of productive procrastination... -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've cleaned that up (or so I hope). -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This did not comply with Russian Empire's plans were these plans that Russia had in mind for just the Ingush, or was this part of a bigger program? If the former, why? If the latter, can you give a bit of information about it? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't mention it as a part of a bigger program, just something for the Ingush, although, Russia probably had used a different method to control other Caucasian peoples. WikiEditor^123… 08:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this bit is clearer now that I made the changes I mentioned in #4. -- asilvering (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to reports of Russian officials, the forcible consolidation of villages, and the organized census. Soviet Russian historian Nikolai Pokrovsky [ru] disagreed with this version, This is a bit unclear, can you take another look at the grammar here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added were the reasons for the uprising, now it's clear. WikiEditor^123… 08:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this Background section, you give a few different reasons for the uprising, but don't emphasize any one of them over the other. Are historians really completely divided over this, or has there been a consensus toward any particular explanation or group of explanations? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority hold the opinion of the official version, i.e. the Tsarist official version. But a prominent expert on this topic Nikolai Pokrovsky (1897-1946) disagreed with this Tsarist version. Should I make more emphasis on the Tsarist version? WikiEditor^123… 08:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you need to give more emphasis to it, but explaining the issue in neutral terms, basically like what you did just here, would help. Right now all we know about Pokrovsky from the article is "Soviet Russian historian" - so someone who doesn't know any of the context is left wondering if this is just some random weirdo or if this is Soviet revisionism that's no more likely to be accurate than the Tsarist line. Making it clearer where the interpretations come from and why allows us to state the issue without accidentally biasing by omission. It's been a long time since Pokrovsky though - does that mean more recent historians have disagreed with him and accept the "Tsarist" explanation? -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a historical revisionism, rather I just wanted to clarify what nationality the historian was. Should I remove the Soviet Russian? WikiEditor^123… 08:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read the sources during source check, I don't think there's actually a real disagreement there. The forcible consolidation of the villages and the census is simply part of the expropriation. So it's better to group all of that together rather than saying he "Pokrovsky disagreed".

For The uprising may also have been caused by a ban on carrying knives., now we're talking about a different meaning of "cause" - the catalyst, not the underlying reason. So this bit ought to go into the next section with the specific discussion of the census. Or you could just remove it entirely, I suppose (I don't think it's as important to mention as all the broad-picture stuff).

How attached are you to this quote by Baryatinsky? I don't think it's appropriate to give such a long quote to a primary source, especially given that we don't have anything from the Ingush. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here's Dolgieva et al: Главная цель военной власти при переселении ингушей в крупные селения – облегчить надзор над населением, укрепить колониальную власть. That's basically what the previous paragraph is talking about - that this is part of the Russian program of colonization. -- asilvering (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent a uprising, the bailiff asked... it sounds like there's already an uprising in progress at this point. Reword? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded: To prevent the escalation of the uprising. WikiEditor^123… 08:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zotov ordered the local Nazranian foremen to calm the people but they no longer controlled the situation. Can you go into a bit more detail here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the source doesn't go into detail. WikiEditor^123… 08:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 May, Ingush of Russian officer ranks appeared to Pavel Zotov, who wanted to send to the rebellious people to have influential people in the disorderly crowd and "should speak in his favor". grammar also gets confused in here, can you take another look? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not even sure how I wrote that, but I've changed it to On 25 May, Ingush of Russian officer ranks appeared before Pavel Zotov, who wanted to send them to the crowds of rebellious Ingush so that they could influence the rebels in his favor. WikiEditor^123… 08:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Pavel Zotov important personally? If he is, could you give a sentence of information about him? If the only important thing is that he's the guy in charge of the Russian reinforcements, you can ignore this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's that important to give a sentence of information about him. It's been established that he was a Russian colonel by that time who suppressed the uprising. More information about him can be read in the RuWiki article. WikiEditor^123… 08:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that they did not know the uprising's provokers and would not extradite them do you mean "that they did not know who provoked the uprising"? If so, say that. But I'm not sure how this accords with four leaders of the movement as hostages, where it seems we know exactly who they are? Were the leaders not the inciters? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that or the deputation lied. Either way, the source I used didn't clarify that, so I will have to unfortunately leave it as it is. (To prevent OR, you know) WikiEditor^123… 09:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an OR issue so much as a clarity issue. I've changed "who provoked the uprising" to "who had been involved in the gangs", and I think this is clearer now. Please do let me know if I've misunderstood that source! -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian troops repulsed the attackers with artillery and rifle fire. No mention of casualties. Were there any? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention in the sources unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there were 42 Ingush killed, unless I'm much mistaken - have another look at Dolgieva et al p. 265? -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uprising affected neighboring Ingush societies that were also were raising movements. More context needed here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following text shows the context: On May 28, the Khamkhins held a public meeting to provide assistance to the Nazranians; they invited the Feappii and Dzherakh but these societies did not attend the meeting. At the same time, according to one Russian report, "a huge party of disobedient people stands not far from the village of Tsorins". WikiEditor^123… 09:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The context that's missing here is about the movements themselves. What does "movement" mean here? What was their purpose? If they're "movements" of their own, we ought to know the context. If you just mean to say that these neighbouring Ingush groups decided to support the Nazran Uprising, that's what the article should say. I didn't get anything particularly helpful from the source here, so maybe it's the latter? -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, according to one Russian report, "a huge party of disobedient people stands not far from the village of Tsorins". In what way is this related to the Khamkhins? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is related to the text The uprising affected neighboring Ingush societies that were also were raising movements. WikiEditor^123… 09:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ingush uprising was led by the Chandyr Archakov What is a Chandyr? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the, Chandyr Archakov is a name. WikiEditor^123… 09:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ingush uprising was led by... There's a list of people here, but we don't know anything about them and they're not wikilinked. Can you give a little bit of background on who these people are and why they're leading this uprising? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not wikilinked as there's no articles about them and will probably never be: no information about them in the sources besides their key role in the uprising. WikiEditor^123… 09:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything at all about them beyond "they were Ingush people"? I ask because the way I'd normally solve this is to write something like "The Ingush uprising was led by three men: Chandyr Archakov, Magomet Mazurov and Dzhagostuko Bekhoev." This makes it more clear that their names aren't important and what's important about them is only that they led this uprising. But if we can use a more meaningful noun than "men", that would be nice. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the three men to the sentence. WikiEditor^123… 08:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shamil replied to the letter with an appeal, calling for them to join his army. So Shamil already had an army before the Nazran uprising? Can you give more context on this please? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Caucasian Imamate led by Shamil had of course an army. I can't give more context as the source (Dolgieva et al. 2013) doesn't give more information, however, it does state that Shamil carried out a general mobilisation in the Imamate and gathered an army of 8000 men. WikiEditor^123… 09:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you mention Dolgieva here? Shamil and the Caucasian Imamate have plenty of information about them in existence broadly. This is the very first mention of Imam Shamil in the article. There should be some context here to explain who he is and why he's inviting them to join his army. A GA needs to be aimed at "an appropriately broad audience", so you don't need to write something for someone who's never heard of Russia, but you should be writing for someone who's never heard of Shamil. Imagine a reader who is broadly aware that Russia fought a war in the Caucasus but doesn't know much of the details. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naib Sabdulla Gekhinskiy like the others above, can we get some more info here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added that he was the naib (governor) of Gekhi, a district within the Imamate. WikiEditor^123… 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that's all the info we need for him I think. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and offered to hand over the amanats rather than hiding the meaning in a footnote, could you explain it in the main text? It would also be helpful to explain why these hostages existed in the first place.-- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to explain that in this article. The term needs its own article where the history and reasons of anamats could be further explained in detail. WikiEditor^123… 14:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to go into the whole detail of what an amanat is, but this is the first mention of "the amanats" in the whole article. The grammar implies we know something about them. I don't! -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian forces gathered two divisions, six battalions, fourteen companies, sixteen Cossack ten, twenty-two cavalry, and foot-and-mountain guns. How many people is this? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't mention that unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 14:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. What's a "Cossack ten"? -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A military formation of Cossacks numbering ten. WikiEditor^123… 07:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, are you sure? The word I found during source-check is сотен. That's not ten. We even have a wikipedia article on this: Sotnia. -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By taking advantage of the movement of the Nazranians and Galashians, Shamil invaded Chechnya. unclear what this means -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed movement to uprising, now it's clearer. WikiEditor^123… 14:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shamil had insufficient supplies and the Nazranians did not provide him with any. why? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is not mentioned in the source unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During Shamil’s retreat, some of the Nazranians, mainly from the Temirkhanov family, pursued and crushed his rearguard. same question. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is not mentioned in the source unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. Do you have any guess why, as a reader? I'm wondering if there's some context that might be obvious to me if I knew more about this history. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's obvious that it's because the Temirkhanov family was Pro-Russian, and I guess, didn't support the movement. WikiEditor^123… 07:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with 600 Alagir, and Kurtat, the Ossetian militia and 200 of the mountain Cossack regiment, which were force-marched to Vladikavkaz. can we get context/numbers for these groups too? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't give more context than that. WikiEditor^123… 14:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian troops simultaneously occupied the subject territories from the retreating forces I have no idea what this means. Clarify? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. WikiEditor^123… 14:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Shamil, he was called by Mussa Kundukhov [ru], the commander of the Voeynno-Ossetinskiy okrug, promising to act in cooperation. same issue. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. WikiEditor^123… 14:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which marked the conquest of Ingushetia by the Russian Empire Hang on, I thought it was already conquered by the Russians, which is why they could demand the local people be moved into settlements in the first place? Can you give a bit more explanation here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how can I further explain if the source itself doesn't go into more detail. By suppressing the last uprising of Ingush, Ingushetia was finally incorporated by Russia. Previously, there have been many uprisings and what not of the Ingush so no, it wasn't part of Russia fully yet. WikiEditor^123… 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bekhoev escaped... Any chance you can say more about this? How did he escape? Where did he go? etc -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the source unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty-two people were each sentenced to 1,000 blows with gauntlets I've never heard of this particular punishment. Can you explain? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've wikilinked "gauntlets" with Running the gauntlet, there the article goes into more detail about the punishment. WikiEditor^123… 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what came to mind when I read "1,000 blows with gauntlets", but it doesn't make any sense - you don't count the blows in running the gauntlet, but the number of laps. They surely didn't do 1000 laps, so this must mean something else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to Thirty-two people were each sentenced to 1,000 times running the gauntlet. Is that now clear? WikiEditor^123… 08:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to stop here and fail the article, since in doing the source check I'm getting very concerned about your answers to my questions. The source states "Кроме того, «тридцать два человека было приговорено к наказанию шпицрутенами – по 1000 ударов на каждого, с лишением всех прав состояния и к ссылке в Сибирь на каторжные работы: в рудники без срока пять человек и на работу на заводах на восемь лет двадцать пять человек».". They were not sentenced to run the gauntlet 1000 times. They were sentenced to по 1000 ударов -- 1000 blows. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the punishments, there are many different ones, can you tell us what kind of people got what kind of punishment and why? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mention in the source unfortunately. WikiEditor^123… 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rebels' defeat may have saved them from more serious events. I think I understand what this paragraph is trying to say, but I'm not sure. Can you try to clarify it some? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Asilvering! Sorry for not having been able to answer your questions and comments, I was little busy with Russian Wikipedia. I will try to get them clarified by this week if that's okay. Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 16:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. WikiEditor^123… 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Dolgieva et al 265 says: "Для большей части ингушского народа это переселение было неприемлемым, так как нарушался традиционный уклад жизни. Также ингуши понимали, что в результате переселения окажутся в полной зависимости от русской власти." I think this really important point is getting lost in some of the details in this article and it's important to emphasize this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's as far as I'll go with this source check actually, since my source check has found a lot of inconsistencies. I will write out a full failure rationale in a moment. Very sorry this took so long, but I'm also unfortunately glad that I did not cut corners. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure rationale

There are two main concerns relevant here. First, I do not think this is written for an appropriately broad audience. This is a problem for 1a. In short, the concepts and people introduced in the article do not always have enough context to explain them for someone who is not already deeply familiar with the topic. In some cases, this doesn't need much - just a few words to explain who an individual is, and so on. Most of these issues are raised above. In others, more explanation broadly would really help the article. In this case I'm talking about general context about Russia and the Caucasus. The grammar has been improved over the course of this review, so "well-written" in that sense is not the issue.

Second, and much more concerning, is the WP:V issues. I earlier asked for clarification on a number of points, such as the meaning of a "Cossack ten" or whether there were any casualties. When I went to the sources as part of my source check, I found that, rather than "no mention in the sources", the answers were right there. This made me seriously concerned about the overall factual basis of the article. I am especially concerned that I asked about the meaning of "Cossack ten", was told it was A military formation of Cossacks numbering ten., but then found that the word in the source was Sotnia -- which does not mean "ten", and in this particular context has a particular meaning. The article needs to be very carefully revised to ensure that it is factually accurate. If this is resubmitted for GA in the future, I recommend that the future reviewer check the sources very carefully. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2024 (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.