| Revision as of 11:41, 12 February 2007 editGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,525 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:54, 12 February 2007 edit undoTabib (talk | contribs)1,162 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :# Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Misplaced Pages contributor ] who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here . | :# Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Misplaced Pages contributor ] who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here . | ||
| *'''Oppose''' The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. ] 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. ] 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --] 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:54, 12 February 2007
Nagorno-Karabakh War
This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Quotes should not be italicized, per the MoS.
- Fair use images need to have a clearly identified copyright holder, source information and a fair use rationale (Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg, Image:Shilka AA.JPG, Image:Khojaly Massacre.jpg, Image:366th and Weapons.jpg, Image:Sumgaitrioting.jpg). Fair use images should be used as little as possible.
- Images are missing source info Image:Nkr-army6.jpg, Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg
- Image:Damage to Stepanakert.jpg; what sort of permission was actually given for the use of this image?
- --Peta 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here . The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
- I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
- Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Misplaced Pages contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here .
- Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)