Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus/archive3

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 00:52, 10 December 2007.

[edit] Belarus

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, I have contacted the League of Copyeditors again about the grammar and prose. However, is there anything else that should be fixed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting but it sure is a long read! I've done a copyedit of the first half of the article, through the Geography section.

Some overall issues:

  • The article switches between the possessive forms Belarus' and Belarus's.
  • There seems to be a mishmash of italicized and un-italicized foreign terms throughout the article.
  • Both double quotes and single quotes have been used when referring to words as words.
  • The acronym CIS is used long before it is introduced in the article.
  • The acronym BSSR is introduced, but is never used; the long-form 'Byelorussian SSR' is still used throughout the entire article.
  • Image placement in the History section results in some text squeezing on widescreen; I can try to tweak this if it's not apparent.
  • The students' banner image is not mentioned in the main article, and the image caption does not clarify how it is relevant to the article topic.

Specific issues:

  • "although the discussions have stalled for several years" : It's not clear whether discussions started several years ago and remain stalled, or discussions are held regularly but stall each time. Can you clarify the wording?
  • "The Latin term for the area, Russia Alba, is derived from the area of present-day Albania, where the inhabitants had very white skin and dogs that could kill large animals." : This needs explanation; the average reader will not be able to infer what "very white skin" and "dogs" have to do with this. Expanded : This is still not explained; what does Albania legendarily being populated by people with very white skin and big dogs have to do with "Russia Alba" or the etymology of the word Belarus?
  • "became independent principalities, including Polatsk." : Why is this one principality singled out?
  • "forming the Belarusian People's Republic. The Germans supported the BNR," : Is BNR a typo? The next sentence refers to BPR.
  • "Byelorussia was hardest hit in the war and remained in Nazi hands until 1944." : Hardest hit in comparison with what?
  • "During that time, 209 out of 290 cities in the republic were destroyed, the Nazis destroyed or removed to Germany 85% of the republic industry, over one million buildings were destroyed" : Either vary your verbs here, or rewrite as a list (During that time, Germany destroyed...).
  • "Some contend that this discovery was proof that the Soviet government was trying to erase the Belarusian people, and caused some to seek independence." : It is not clear what the second part of this sentence modifies. What caused some to seek independence?

Statements that should probably be supported with citations:

  • "The first known use of the term "White Russia" to refer to Belarus was in the late sixteenth century by Englishman Sir Jerome Horsey."
  • "While the pro-independence Belarusian Popular Front took only 10 percent of the seats, the populace was content with the selection of the delegates."

Thanks for an interesting read! I will try to give the second half of the article the same treatment, but it may take me some time to finish. Maralia 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I did a bit of copyediting, which the article still needs a good dose of. I found the culture section to be rather lacking, however. Compare the public-domain text that I just posted in the Belarusian culture page, which ties together the culture as a whole rather than just arbitrarily naming writers and musicians (which is what the culture section seems like now). 140.247.243.169 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
About what Maralia was getting at, I fixed every but the foreign terms. I was told to get rid of those linked terms, though I probably need to have them italicized. The problem with the culture text is that I am not sure how to work that in. Just take the whole thing? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked a few phrases that were affected by your edits today. Struck out the items I'm sure are resolved. Expanded on one item above (see bold). Looking pretty good - will try to get to the second half of the article shortly. Maralia 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

About the MOS issues, I am lost. When I read the MOS page, I felt very confused about it and I am not sure what to do with it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think India is a good example for Etymology section formatting. Basically, use italics rather than quote marks for foreign terms. As a side note, the etymology section would be much more clear if you followed India's example by starting with "The name Belarus is derived from". Maralia 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I could not make the etymology section shorter, but I tried your tricks out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. One major concern I have about this article is its frequent misstating of source material. When I go through the sources, I very often have to correct the text to reflect what they actually say. Examples:
    • The stats about how many belarusians are employed by which type of company (state, private) used to say that those proportions applied to the number of companies themselves (incorrect).
    • A source merely indicating economic disruption caused by an oil crisis is used to support the general statement that "The country is relatively stable economically, but depends to a large extent on import resources"
    • A source listing six or seven agricultural products is used to support the statement that meat and potatoes (two of the listed products) dominate Belarusian agriculture.
    • A source that says the biggest exports are heavy machinery, agricultural products, and energy products was previously used to support the statement "The biggest export of Belarus is machinery, such as tractors and defense equipment."
    • A source that documents the languages of a 150-work library is used to support the statement that "Many of the works [between the 11th and 13th centuries] were written in one of the following languages: Old Belarusian, Latin, Polish and Church-Slavic." - far too broad a conclusion that 200 years of literature from a 150-work collection
    • A source saying that demographic decreases in the number of conscription-age Belarusians will increase the importance of contract soldiers is used to support "The number of the conscripted soldiers have been decreasing; 2006 estimates had conscripted soldiers at 85,000. Further cuts in conscriptions have been planned to only needing approximately 60,000 soldiers by 2016." (Note that those figures are used in the source as the number of people who will be eligible for conscription in those years, not as a statement of policy.)
  • I am very concerned about the accuracy of the article because of this and urge that a thorough review of the sources be done before it is considered for FA. 140.247.243.169 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Those that you have now fixed, I am fixing now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • All of those citation needed templates were dealt with too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • This is good, but my concern remains about citations that I didn't check. I had to rewrite a significant portion (a quarter? a third? higher?) of the sentences that I checked, but I didn't check all of them. Generally the misstatements were minor, but that sort of error rate is alarming.... It also makes me nervous about sources in Belarusian/Russian that I can't verify. 140.247.243.169 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What happened to the economy between 1995 (when GDP declined over 10%) and 1997 (when GDP increased by 12%)? That isn't explained in the economy section, but it seems extremely important... The article leaves off at a plunge in exports in the 1990s, but then cites ridiculously huge present growth rates without explaining them. 140.247.243.169 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not have a source saying exactly what happened that caused the changes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Other than just putting the GDP into use of the social welfare sphere, I do not know what caused the GDP to rise. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Other affairs related to the economy was added to the infobox. Plus, I am still lost on the MoS issues listed at the top. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I give up. I have tried for 2 years; if it is not going to pass now, it never will. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - This is an exceptionally done Wikipedia entry. It reads well; any claims are supported with references. It has plenty of visual coverage and has a natural flow to it. Belarus would make a great addition as an FA.--Riurik(discuss) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - basically problems from above mentioned didn't fix well. For the external link, if English language available, it doesn't really need to write down "Russian" or "Belarusian". It is also not necessary for you to write down "main article(s)" like culture in case "See also" already covered it/them. By the way, why "media" should be a sub-topic of culture but not cuisine, Belarusian dress, music, etc? Coloane (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll work on the link part, but I still need help for the MoS issues that some raised. I am still confused by the MoS in general. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • About the see also issues, I noticed that Japan, a featured article on a country, still has the "main article" links at the top of their headings while still having a similar template at the bottom. I request to keep that formatting in the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel bad objecting, because the author has worked so hard to improve this text. I looked at one little section (Demographics), and found lots of little MOS glitches, and problems of redundancy such as
    • "Over 99% of Belarusians (both male and female) are literate"—spot the redundant phrase?
    • "A small minority (about 1%) belong to"—spot the redundant phrase?
  • "Belarus was also about 10% Jewish until World War II, being a major center of European Jewry, but during the war Jews were reduced by war, starvation, and the Holocaust to a tiny minority of about 1% or less." Remove "also"; reverse the first two phrases; "but" should contradict the previous statement; "the Jewish population was reduced"; war x 2; "to less than 1% of the population". Not good.

Indicates that a lot of careful work is needed; please bring on board others, or even find a non-WPian who's a word-nerd to come onto the project. Good way of attracting skilled editors? Tony (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, and read MOS on numbers, please. Leading zeros, consistent decimal places, no slash in conversion; percent or % (choose one, please). Tony (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the league again for copyedits, but I have not heard anything recent from them after I answered their questions. I decided to use % instead of percent. I tried to fix the Jewish statement, I hope it works. However, I ask what do you mean by "no slash in conversion." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Nvm, I fixed it on my own. I just needed to read. I got the number issues taken care here, but I will see if it needs to be applied elsewhere. If that is one thing I notice this time around it is more of MoS issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As promised on my talk page, I will work on cleaning up the Etymology section per MOS. I've copyedited the rest of the article again this morning. It's looking better, but there are a few sentences I want to have another go at—and a copyedit from someone with fresh eyes would be wise also. One specific thing you can fix: the lead description of which countries border on Belarus is slightly different from the description given in the Geography section (does Russia border on the east, or on the north and east?). Maralia 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I fixed that in the lead (I added north to it). I also dealt with the citation issues at the geography section; a lot of the information about the geography I had to find from a website owned by the National Government, but the validity of that source was challenged. So instead of having "fact" tags everywhere, I just nuked what I could not cite. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Queries:
    Could you improve the heading system? Do you think the following suggestions would?
    (a)could "Politics", "Foreign relations and military" "Provinces and districts" go under a single "over" heading? called government perhaps-
    (b)could "Demographics" and "Culture" go under a single "over heading? called society perhaps-
    Belarus is considered to be in Western Europe - and some consider it to be a part of "Russia" or Russian Civilization -right? are either noted in the article? Perhaps these could be noted within "Geography" or "Demographics"?
    --Keerllston 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I mostly seen Belarus considered Eastern Europe, since they were part of the Soviet block. However, I do not have a source to back either claim, so instead of having a glaring fact tag, I keep it out. About the headings, I was asked the last time to split the headings into that format. Even if I did take your suggestions, I would have put the subnational division sections under geography. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • As to sourcing had you visited the article on Eastern Europe? - how about Central Europe? it seems both the CIA factbook and the UN have definitions of Eastern Europe -
        It seems there are different opinions on whether to have subheadings or not in articles about certain things... I would not want you to do anything you consider too controversial to the article.
        I guess there's both internal divisions in terms of geography and in terms of politics/administration, no?
        --Keerllston 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep sitting down to clean up the Etymology section for MOS, but the content is giving me a hard time. My problem is that the section, as written, is more about 'names the country has been called' than it is actually about the origin of the word 'Belarus'. In my opinion, the other text— especially on 'White Russia' and on 'Ruthenia' vs 'Russia'—confuses the issue, although of course I see how it's somewhat relevant. I would like to see the section reworked to truly focus on the etymology of the word 'Belarus', with a brief mention of/link to White Russia (and of course, your research on that should not be lost, but rather moved to that article). Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I had it simplified earlier, but people wanted to have it expanded more during this FAC process. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry; it must be really frustrating to get contradictory requests. Can you point me in the direction of that conversation? I looked but couldn't find it. Maralia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.