Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Republic of Guria/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [1].

Republic of Guria

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guria is a region in western Georgia, and a century ago was a hive of activity for Georgian socialism. The so-called Gurian Republic, which was more a quasi-rebellion than organised state, was sort of a trial run for the Georgian Mensheviks, many of whom would play leading roles in the first Georgian republic in 1918-1921. The article went through GA, and a thorough copyedit during a Peer Review (credit to @K.e.coffman and @Daniel Case for their help there). Now looking at the next step. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • Can we get ISBN or OCLC for all print sources?
Done for all but the Zhghenti book. Honestly I can hardly find anything online from it, aside from being cited in other works. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability of sources looks OK for what they are being cited for.
  • Ideally there would be a verifiable source for the Russian and Georgian translations.
@Buidhe: I noticed you tagged the translations. I'll be happy to go and find some sources, but it may take a couple days (really wish I could get access to the university library again). Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
I'm far from well-versed in copyright regulations, so am not sure how we would go about that, but am willing to do the work if you have suggestions. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Georgian copyright law, "Copyright shall commence upon creation of a work and shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his/her death, except for the cases provided for by Article 32 of this Law." By that standard the author would need to have died before 1950, unless the sculptor is unknown in which case the statue would need to have been erected before 1950. Since it was "built in 1965", it seems neither condition has been met: I've nominated for deletion on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buidhe, while you're correct on the underlying legal framework, I'm not convinced this particular obelisk is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection - at least in the US. Your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I don't know much about threshold of originality for 3-d works. For this, it's hard to say which elements are sculptural and which are damage... (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's mostly damage, though agreed it's hard to tell. KM, do you have a better sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Lots of monuments around Georgia are in rough shape, and I would suspect this one is also like that, but I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Knowing that it is located out of the way on a side road (I lived right by there for a time, it's not close to anything) I would think that is damage, though. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I believe I addressed this, but I misunderstood let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Colchis_and_Iberia_on_Ptolemy_Asia_map.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag
That I have no idea about, as it is part of the History of Georgia template. But based on the source image, File:Third map of Asia (Caspian Sea and surrounding), in full gold border) (NYPL b12455533-427045).tif, would that be sufficient information to give it a US PD tag?
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated the status on that to match the source image. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ოზურგეთის_მაზრა.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag
The author died in 1906, so that should be good. Added a tag.
  • File:Gogiashvili_A.,_'Gurians',_1906.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Earliest book source I can find is a Soviet/Georgian book from 1947. If that is good just let me know if the tags are appropriate, and I'll go from there. I will note I can't find any info on the book's author, so cannot confirm a date of death (or if he is alive).
The current tagging is based on an author date of death of 1907 and a publication before 1925. If neither of those things can be demonstrated the tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion then? This is not something I'm familiar with at all, unfortunately. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the info you've provided here I'd be inclined to say it's non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is tenuous I know, but the source website has the backside of the photo, which uses pre-1917 Russian spellings (the Bolsheviks reformed the orthography in 1917). Other than that there is nothing to really solidly confirm date of publication, but there is no reason something like this would use outdated spelling. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure how that would confirm publication at that time? You mean something printed with old spellings, or just written? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said it's a tenuous connection, and with the old spelling printed on the back I would argue that it meets the criteria. But I also realise that's not exactly evidence, and if you think it isn't strong enough I have no objection to removing it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta Comments

[edit]
  • Ok, I worked through the first half of the citations to this source, which I hope will be sufficient for the FAC coordinators to help assess compliance to FAC criteria 1C. There's only a few small concerns in this source review, so feel to move this to the talk page when addressed. (SFN numbers based on this version of the article) Esculenta (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through like that. As noted below, the Jones 2005 source may be on Google Books (I can see most of the relevant pages), and I'll also note I have a copy of Lee, Pate, Rayfield, and Suny available if you would like help with those. For the others I don't have physical copies at the moment (the university library nearby won't lend them out yet). Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFN 4: “The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000, while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate). That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent.” The citation placed at the end of this sentence needs to support several facts presented:
  • ”The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000” I did not find this fact on page 408. However, page 406 does state “In 1904 the population was just under 100,000…” which is not the same as the article text
Thanks for catching that. It is from the other Jones citation, which I have added now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate)." OK
  • "That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent." OK
  • SFN 5a: OK
  • SFN 5b: OK
  • SFN 10: OK
  • SFN 17: “The average peasant household had no more than 1.5 desyatina (roughly the same amount of hectares), with half of that land rented. In European Russia this figure was closer to 10 or 11 desyatina per household, while the authorities in Kutaisi estimated at least 4 desyatina were required for a poor family to survive.” OK for the first facts; I don’t have access to the second cited source to see if it confirms the rest.
It may be possible to get access through Google Books; I searched and found most of the relevant chapter available, and if you're unable to see it I can get screenshots.
  • SFN 21: “By the 1880s, Guria had the highest average rent of anywhere in the Transcaucasus.” The source mentions the land price change from the time period 1880s to 1900, with the implication that latter year is when average rent prices were the highest, not quite the same as what the wikipedia article claims.
Fair enough. I read it as Jones saying the rent itself went up the highest, not just the rate of increase. But I've added a clarifying word to best reflect what the source says.
  • SFN 22: OK
  • SFN 24: OK
  • SFN 28: OK
  • SFN 29a: Parts of the sentence are supported by source, other parts I assume are supported by the second citation.
I modified the page to better reflect that the refusal to support was due to the religious overtones.
  • SFN 29b: Supports first half of sentence (there is another citation). "… and by the spring of 1903 half of Guria was involved." is the exact wording as the source, so should probably reword.
Done
  • SFN 29c: OK
  • SFN 34: OK
  • SFN 36a: OK on fact support, but there is a quote with no attribution, and the change in ending punctation suggests a visit to MOS:LQUOTE might be helpful
Reworded to remove the quote, let me know if you think that's better.
  • SFN 36b: OK
  • SFN 36c: OK
  • SFN 36d: OK
  • SFN 41a: OK
  • SFN 41b: OK
  • SFN 41c: OK
  • SFN 45a: OK but check quote formatting (final comma in quote that's not in source; what’s done with beginning capital letter of quote?)
Fixed.
  • SFN 45b: OK
  • SFN 45c: OK
  • SFN 47: OK
  • Here are more thoughts after carefully reading the lead. I think it needs a bit of massaging to make to easier to read for the neophyte in historical studies. Hope these comments are useful. Esculenta (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The Republic of Guria, or the Gurian Peasant Republic,[a] was the name used” the way the sentence is currently laid out, there is a singular/plural mismatch. Is one name use predominantly in English literature on this topic?
A search shows that in English it is almost exclusively referred to as the "Gurian Republic"; the "Peasant" qualifier comes up in some Russian sources but that is about it. That said I would also be inclined based on this to move it to the more common name (Gurian Republic), pending this discussion.
  • "was the name used by an insurrection” the insurrection used this name? how about the wording "are the names given to an insurrection"
Modified.
  • "This rose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, however, several issues over the previous decades effecting the peasant population including taxation, land ownership and economic factors also led to the insurrection." there is a grammar issue that could be fixed by replacing the first comma with a semicolon. But anyway the sentence is long and hard to digest for the second sentence of the lead; perhaps split in two? Should effecting should be affecting?
I made some changes, should be clearer now.
  • should links like taxation, grazing, land ownership, and sentence be included?
I've left them out as I felt they were common enough terms that would be familiar enough to the reader.
  • ”over making common cause” I have not heard that English expression before, which makes the sentence a little harder to digest.
Clarified
  • ”While the movement” Is this "movement" the Republic of Guria? Previously it was referred to as an insurrection.
Added that it was also a protest movement to the lead sentence. That should help clarify it.
Clarified.
Addressed the above, let me know if there's any more. Regarding the name, I do think after looking it over it would be more appropriate as "Gurian Republic", so unless you (or anyone else) opposes, I will move it to match the more common name. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • You have both Uratadze and Uradadze; which is correct?
The former, so I've fixed that typo.
  • they refused due to the inclusion of overt religious overtones of the meeting, such as swearing oaths on icons: I don't think you can include overtones. I'd suggest "they refused because of overt religious elements of the meeting".
Done.
  • Initially terrorism and acts of violence were used, but this was banned by mid-1903 as it was not considered proper for revolutionaries: I assume the ban comes from the RSDLP leaders, since presumably the peasant base of the movement would not have been too worried by what was considered proper for revolutionaries. Were the acts of terrorism and violence from the peasant base? I'm wondering if this was the RSDLP recruits exercising control over an unruly peasant movement, or if the violence was initially sanctioned by the RSDLP -- if the sources make this clear, of course.
Reading the source itself, it implies that the desire to use terrorism/violence stemmed from the peasants themselves ("Despite opposition from the peasant delegates terror was condemned as 'an improper evaluation of the revolutionary activity of men ...'"). As the wording doesn't fit with what is written in the article, I reworded it more closely match what the source says.
  • These regional representatives would be the ones directly in contact with the Gurian Social Democratic Committee, established as a parallel governmental structure by the Social Democrats, who were initially reluctant to have the peasants join their movement. The RSDLP's reluctance has been mentioned a couple of times to this point, and I'm not clear if this is just a reference to that, or to a new reluctance to admit the peasants to the hierarchy of the party, now that the Gurian Republic existed?
It's just repetition, so removed that note.
  • Guria was further divided into five regions: what does "further" mean here? It seems to imply that these regions are not the same as those represented by the "regional representatives". And you have "further" in the next sentence as well; again I'm not sure what that implies.
Again removed it; seems redundant.
  • while the peasants were angry at being excluded from the party: I hadn't understood they were included; I took "initially reluctant" to mean that the peasants did eventually get included. Looking back over the section it seems that the peasants' bottom-up structure is one system, and the RSDLP's committee is another, but I didn't understand as I read about the GSDC that it was a governmental structure -- I thought it was simply the RSDLP's organizational approach to Guria, as a political party.
It is a bit confusing, I'll admit, especially if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the debates going on between the socialists at the time. Without getting bogged down into details here, I'll quickly summarize, and perhaps you may be able to offer suggestions on how to clarify it: the RSDLP did not want to include peasants in its party, as they felt they were not ready or appropriate for the goals of social democracy. The Georgian branch felt otherwise, mainly because Georgia, unlike Russia, did not have a strong worker class, and was mainly full of peasants. This is partly why the RSDLP was reluctant to support the Gurian movement, which was very much a peasant-dominated movement.
  • The decision to have two systems: was this really a conscious decision on anyone's part to choose two systems? Or were they really oppositional, even if not explicitly so at first?
Jones does imply it was a conscientious choice to have two systems ("It was decided to form a bifurcated organization: 'democratic' committees for the peasants and 'revolutionary' ones for the Social Democrats."). However he also notes that this distinction was blurred as they had to work in tandem ("In practice the distinction between the two committees was often lost. According to two socialist observers of the Gurian experiment, Social Democrats were 'soon forced to abandon the limits of strict party work and participate in the very centre of the daily life of the peasants .'... The conference also endorsed the 'circle' as the basic organizational form in the villages.")
  • The chronology seems wrong -- how can a problem with the system of government in place in 1905 lead to a split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in August 1903?
That should have been in past tense; fixed now.
  • with both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at times being asked to participate in debates: what is meant by debates? The village meetings? Or formal party meetings at which policy was discussed?
Was local debates, added that qualifier.
  • Justice was conducted in a popular fashion by the village assemblies: does "in a popular fashion" add anything here?
Not the way it is written. I've added the more clear wording, so should be better now.
  • On 9 January 1905 soldiers fired upon a crowd of demonstrators in Saint Petersburg, an event that became known as Bloody Sunday setting off the 1905 Russian Revolution, exacerbated by constant defeats during the Russo-Japanese War. I think this is phrased awkwardly -- two things that bother me are that I'm not sure what the subject of "exacerbated" is, and I think the parenthetical comment about naming the event "Bloody Sunday" gets in the way of the sentence.
I moved the clause about the Russo-Japanese War to the next sentence, as I think it is more appropriate there. Also reworded so it should be a little clearer.
  • The Tsarist authorities responded to the Gurian Republic. I think you could cut this sentence, perhaps changing the next one to start "The Tsarist acting governor-general..."
Fixed
  • Does Mchedishvili (2012) have an ISBN or publisher location?
It's an online source, so neither would be applicable.

A very interesting read about a bit of history I knew nothing about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC) ::Started to reply to some here, will get the rest shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed everything, aside from my one note above about peasant exclusion from the party. If you have anything more to add, I'll be sure to do what I can. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the points above and will think about wording and post here again later this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about rewording that paragraph, and I've decided I don't know what "indicative" means in "This was indicative of the larger division in the RSDLP that had led to a split between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions". The worker vs. peasant issue is not one over which the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks would have been divided, is it? Or is it the case that e.g. the Mensheviks were more in favour of peasant involvement? And looking back on the use of "Georgian Social Democrat" in the article, I see that it's first used in the "Formation..." section, without definition. I'd assumed it was synonymous with "Georgian members of the RSDLP -- is that right? Then we have "Georgian socialists also divided in 1905, with the social democrats declaring themselves Mensheviks and aligning with the RSDLP", so "Georgian socialists" is not the same as "Georgian Social Democrats". Can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight, and I'm glad to have someone relatively unfamiliar with the topic comment, as I know it can get confusing. I've done some rewording, and added a little insight into what happened (I don't want to get too bogged down in details in the article, as it really is tangential to the subject, though having the background does help). Let me know if that resolves it, or if you think more is needed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely clearer. The one thing that I still don't understand is these two sentences: "The division further split the Georgian Social Democrats, and was never fully resolved during the existence of the Gurian Republic. Georgian socialists also divided in 1905, with the social democrats declaring themselves Mensheviks and aligning with the RSDLP." What is the second sentence saying that has not already been conveyed by the first part of the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it over I do think it is a little unnecessary to note here, and went and removed the second sentence (referring to the Mensheviks). I merged the remaining information, and think it should convey the right information without being too bogged down in ideological differences that aren't important here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the last edit all my concerns have been resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with that Mike, I'm glad to have cleared things up. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Thanks for mentioning the duplicate links; thought I had them all before, but should be good now (the only repeats should be from the language template). Kaiser matias (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Empire and adultry still seem to be duplinked.
Odd, those were the two I fixed, and don't see anything duplicated now.
Maybe a cache issue, I don't see the duplinks anymore either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Guria and other terms at first mention outside the intro.
Done
Done
  • "It was noted by contemporary Bolshevik Grigory Aleksinsky" Contemporary with what? Would probably be better just to give the year.
Reworded to say he was active during this time.
  • Link Georgian Social Democrats at first mention, now it's only linked further below.
Fixed
  • Link Menshevik.
There is a link to "Menshevism" within the quote from Aleksinsky, though if you want a second link to the specific word "Menshevik" I can do so.
Should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "main faction within the RSDLP" You only spell this term out and link it far below first mention, should be at the earliest.
Fixed.
Addressed these, ready for anything else you have. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a branch of the (RSDLP)" Why parenthesis?
Fixed
  • Link Marxism?
Done
  • "in the western Georgian region of" This could probably be restated at the beginning of the article body outside the intro.
Done
  • "notes that in one case two peasants convicted of adultery forced to ride a donkey" Missing "were"?
Done
  • I wonder if a photo of Beniamin Chkhikvishvili should be shown in for example the System of government section? Seems a bit odd now that the only people now pictured were not from the republic, but against it.
There was a photo of Chkhikvishvili, however the copyright status of it is unclear so it had to be removed. Otherwise I would totally agree.
  • "and the removal of soldiers stationed in Guria, but not from there" I'm not sure what the last part means.
Fixed
  • I can't seem to find any mention of what date the republic was proclaimed, or even any mention of a proclamation? Reading the article, it just seems to be referred to as a republic suddenly.
The issue is it never really had a founding moment, no real declaration that it existed. The May 1902 meeting is what Jones (the main researcher of the topic) cites as the start of it, so I've made that more clear.
  • Link Cossacks.
Done
  • "Alikhanov-Avarsky had his predecessor arrested immediately" Why?
Clarified
  • "and 26 cannon were sent" Cannons?
Fixed
  • "both were the target of multiple assassination attempts after the uprisings." Perhaps make clear whether these were responses to the crackdown throughout the empire rather than just Georgia? As it is written now, it reads as if the assassination attempts were responses specifically to the Guria crackdown.
  • "was killed by an Armenian terrorist group" The term terrorist seems a bit loaded?
Changed the wording
  • I'm not sure if it's too much of a tangent, but could there be some more info on the theoretical justification for workers not making common cause with the peasants?
I made a brief mention about the peasants not being ready for class struggles, as that is the very basic point of it. I'm hesitant to add more as it does then get into the party struggles, which is really not that relevant beyond a passing mention of why the Bolsheviks were not interested in this rebellion.
  • "The organised peasants were able to fend off a small force of Cossacks" Perhaps it should be mentioned before in the intro that the Russians initially attempted to appease them by more diplomatic means?
Addressed some here, will have to check sources to finish the rest. Should be done shortly though. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you can just ping me when the rest is done. One last question, was it referred to as "Republic of Guria" when it existed, or is it a retroactive label? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for waiting, I believe I've addressed things here, but of course let me know if there's anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through it, glad you enjoyed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis

[edit]

Great article, a few comments and questions.

  • Would prefer a more contemporaneous map in the infobox, perhaps the one from Background?
That was the map used there originally, but it was changed during the Peer Review; honestly I'd also prefer the older-style one, too, and would be happy to switch them out again.
  • "Guria had seen the highest average increase in rent", increase from when/what?
Clarified
  • What did it mean to "boycott" landowners? Was it refusing to pay them rent, or is it the same as the Justice boycott covered later in the article?
The initial meeting in 1902 saw the peasants agree "to stop working on the Prince's land and stop paying rent" (to quote the article).
  • Why does the lead refer to it as a 1905-1906 event, when it started in 1903 and was already raising taxes by 1904?
That was something missed during the expansion of the article, so thanks for catching that; it had originally only focused on the armed uprising, which took place from 1905-1906, while the actual movement was 1902-1906 (now corrected).
  • "ordered Maksud Alikhanov-Avarsky west", west from where? I'm not sure what exactly it means given later in the paragraph he was named Governor and declared emergency rule, but this was before "going west". What exactly was called off?
West from Tiflis, the capital. I've added that note. Also clarified what was called off (military intervention).
  • The article uses both "emergency rule" and "martial law", which refer to the same situation (to my understanding).
The issue is the sources use both terms, but refer to the same thing: Rayfield calls it "emergency rule" while Jones says "martial law". Neither was an official term, so I'm inclined to stick with martial law, as it is a clearer term.
  • It is unclear to me why sending the military to Eastern Georgia heightened tensions in Guria, especially as revolts there have not been mentioned before. It might also be useful to mention if they were sent by the Viceroy or the Tsar.
Several civilians were killed by the military, which is what led to the tensions. That's been noted.
  • The Surami Pass seems quite far from Guria, had their territory expanded?
It was (and still is) the main way to cross the country, and is a natural barrier between east and west. They did it as a pre-emptive move, which I hope is clearer now.

CMD (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything above, with a query about the lead image. If there's more I'll be sure to do that, too. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead image, my view is that a current map makes little sense given this is about a historic period/entity and seems very much framed within the wider processes of the Russian Empire at that time. The article also doesn't seem to clarify anywhere whether the borders of Guria then are the same as the borders to today's Guria. I'd remove the History of Georgia sidebar as well, given this is not about Georgia as a whole and there is already an infobox. This would make space for another image, perhaps one of the Transcaucus railway that might also show the population centres. Overall I think there is room and cause for a bit more media, but the media that is there is appropriate, so with my textual concerns addressed I am happy to support this short yet informative article. CMD (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I went ahead and moved the older map back to the lead, as I also think it's better there. I moved the contemporary border map to the legacy section, and while I do believe the borders of the region are largely the same as they were a century ago, I don't have that information easily accessible, though I agree adding that would be good and will try to find it. I'd also like some more images, but the lack of confirmed free-use ones that would fit the article is a challenge, though I'm again hoping to rectify that (though that would probably necessitate a visit to Tbilisi and scanning old books). Kaiser matias (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't think I've ever reviewed one of your articles before, so great article. I'll note down some issues I have below.

Russian was the official language of the Empire, so naturally things like regions and titles would be given in Russian. Georgian equivalents exist, but the standard convention in the field is to use the Russian forms.
Moved it, let me know if that's what you mean.
  • While it directly arose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, the roots of the movement dated back decades, drawing on several issues facing the area's peasant population, including taxation, land ownership, and economic factors- A little informal here, what about: This rose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, however, several issues over the previous decades effecting the peasant population including taxation, land ownership and economic factors also led to the insurrection. Or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I reworded this, hopefully it is better now.
Added some more.
Is it? I saw one duplicate link that I removed, but any others either are for the language template, or use "Georgian" as an adjective. If I'm missing something though please let me know.
It arguably wouldn't be. Russian was not used throughout Georgia, despite being part of the Russian Empire. Aside from ethnic Russians and those dealing within official matters most would not speak it.
I removed it and added a citation and noting it is what Jones himself wrote.
It's the format used within the citation: "...Committee for 'agricultural workers' in Guria..."
Removed
Done
Added
Thanks, fixed that.
I believe I've addressed everything here, but if you have anything else to add I'll be happy to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reserve the right to change this if something comes up that is major, but I'm happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: FACBOT alert, the nominator changed the article name to Gurian Republic after the FAC closed ... I believe the nom should still build correctly into Template:Article history under the old name, but wanted to give you a heads up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Republic_of_Guria/archive1&oldid=987272218"