Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus/archive2

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 not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

[edit] Belarus

previous FAC

OK, after several attempts of peer review, some issues related to content and from the Countries Wikiproject, I personally believe the article on Belarus is ready for FAC. Unlike with previous FAC's that I have done, I managed to enlist the support of the Copyeditors League, so grammar should not be a major issue. Picture wise, Belarus looks great, though the pictures of Putin and Lukashenko and the USSR stamp I have questions over or are being discussed on the Commons. Other than that, I hope this article makes yall happy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Sorry but at first glance, the refs need formatting. Some of them have access dates, others don't. Some have no info at all.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Y Done
    • No problem, working on that now. As for the access dates, I can try and find out when they were introduced to the article, but I will work on that once the initial formatting is complete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be easier to just check the refs yourself and set the accessdate to the current date. Wickethewok 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am doing it now, over halfway done. I will also try and compress the footnotes, so if there is a URL that repeats, I can use some of the formatting I used at Flag of Lithuania. Thanks for the tips. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, that should be at least it for the actual formatting, dates will come later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a better way of showing that the Largest cities in Belarus section - the populations and so on - are sourced?-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Y Done
    • Yes and yes. I took out the list and put it in paragraph form. The closest source I could find was the World Gazette, which I included at the end of the paragraph. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence : "Belarus is also the only European nation that has been formally barred from joining the Council of Europe because of human rights violations and for conducting elections that do not meet democratic standards." is a very controversial and complex point to have in the lead without attributions or citations. Issues about human rights violations and democracy cannot be easily explained in one sentence. Human rights violations could mean anything from poor practices in the workplace to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, and hence could be misleading to unknowing readers glancing at the article. Also, democracy is incommensurable and no authoritative body owns that definition. There is no counterpoint from the Belarusian government. I think this needs to be discussed in detail in the body of the article, which it is, rather than the lead. I'm fairly sure someone will challenge that sentence if it ever appeared on the main page and I've seen some very nasty edit wars and even lawsuits break out over these types of sentences in nation article leads before. They are perhaps the most contentious parts in all wikipedia. Therefore I preach caution and encourage discussion about this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • Going by the featured article norm that every piece of information that could be challenged should have an inline citation, I think there are too many unsourced facts and a number of unsourced paragraphs. For instance "The first known use of the term "White Russia" to refer to Belarus was in the late sixteenth century by Englishman Sir Jerome Horsey." at the start of the history section. I think the first thing to do would be to add inline citations to some of these more precise details, such as the above, and "The spellings Belorussia and Byelorussia are transliterations of unofficial alternative names of the country in Russian." "Belarusian territories remained part of the Russian Empire until they were occupied by Germany during World War" etc. -- Zleitzen(talk) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Needs better referencing (I generally resent editors who qualify an article's quality based on ref counts, but only, cmon, only 38?), I want to know more about the events, leaders, and issues that lead to post-Soviet independence, politics makes no mention of foreign relations except to Russia and non-EU status (what of other eastern European and Soviet-bloc countries?), picture sizes need to be standardized, aligned, formatted better, administrative divisions could be split into either "Politics" or "Geography" as there is not enough info to warrant its own section unless more information was given about these in relation to each other, "Culture" suffers from some NPOV and attribution issues. Madcoverboy 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Created paragraph on foreign affairs, though I need to expand about the Americas and China (especially). I need to mention that Belarus is part of the NAM and Lukashenko was present at the last NAM meeting in Cuba in 2006. I am trying to tackle the POV issues in the Culture section, but I am also expanding it and introducing some references. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg is tagged as {{president.gov.by}}, but it does not appear to be a free image, since the listed rights only include copying, not the creation and distribution of derivative works.
    2. The image Image:Soviet Union-1961-Stamp-0.03. Belarusians.jpg is tagged as {{PD-RU-exempt}}, but it does not appear to fit in any of the classes of works exempt from copyright.
  • --Carnildo 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Removed both photos. As for the first photo license, it is similiar to {{Kremlin.ru}}, which is up for deletion at the Commons, so that is what I started to use it a few months ago. I think it is free, but that is a discussion that needs to be held elsewhere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - another pet topic as I have ancestors from Grodno..Umm a few points:
The lead is a bit short and should summarize points in the article - thus I expected to see a brief note on the political background of Lukashenko/ruling party (need only be a few words). Also (possibly) the fact that a third of it still had issues with irradiation from Chernobyl.


In history section there is "archagologist" (?) - do you mean archaeologist?

will look more later cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, I mean archaeologist. Well, I had a sentence about Lukashenko's rule, (just him, since from what I understand, there is not a major party, unlike in Russia) but in a few replies above, I was told to take it down. I had Chernobyl mentioned in the lead also, but not sure why I took that out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting those government sentences in the lead to stick for a long period and be agreed, particularly I imagine for a more unconventional country like Belarus, is a painstaking business. Like balancing a coin on a tightrope. There should be a way of explaining the government position in the lead, but this is wikipedia! A featured article that then appears on the main page will be subject to so much scrutiny by both knowledgeable and idiotic passers-by that the challenge to make it accurate and NPOV that isn't changed regularly is daunting. I'll try and help over the next few days on the page and see if we can fashion something as tight as possible.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I do admit that if there was one article that was pretty hard to make it seem FA material, this is it. While I should be blesed that many POV issues were relegated to Lukashenko's article or the POV wasn't too hard to fix. The sourcing ain't hard, though just trying to make sure I have enough information in is what kills me. I expand on the indepenence, then the previous history looks stubby. But, the novacain should wear off in a few hours, so I will take some more stabs at the history and the sourcing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I feel that the prose is in very poor shape. It's not just a case of requiring a copyedit but in my opinion of needing more precise thought in many places. I do have a list of actionable criticisms but I can't bring myself to post them here because they might seem too harsh and because addressing them alone would still not be enough to change my vote. Once this candidacy is over, I will be able to frame them in a less judgemental way, if the main editor wants to look at them. I would like to say that this article is very informative in places and taught me a lot: it is very valuable to Wikipedia. But in my opinion it is a long way from FA quality. qp10qp 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I had a copy edit done earlier this year, but I am not sure if the new text I introduced was bad, or everything is crap overall. I think that right now, anything for me to fix is fine, despite on how harsh it is. I am not sure how long this candidacy will last, but I suspect it won't last for pretty long. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.