Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom Monument (Riga)

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 17:10, 24 September 2007.

[edit] Freedom Monument (Riga)

self-nomination I worked on this article in this spring, it was prometed to GA in June and hasn't changed much since then, except for few minor edits and new images I added recently, however I think it is good enough to have a higher status - I don't even see how its content could be further expanded without going into unnecessary detail. I submited the article to peer review, however it was reviewed only by bot and I've addressed issues that had been found. The article was copyedited in the spring by other users, but I'm thinking of requesting a copyedit for assurance (English is not my native language and I don't understand if few minor issues (like articles) are correct or not) ---- Xil...sist! 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support: a really good article which deserves to be featured. SpeedKing1980 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: interesting read and comprehensive. You can cut down on the use of {{lang-lv}} though, it gets really repetitive after a while, even in parentheses, and I think we get the point that it's Latvian. Also, I blinked when I approached the 'significance' section; I think it should go first as "History" because I would like to know about why this is so important before the design details. But that is just my personal preference. ALTON .ıl 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if what you say should be done - it might be confusing for some if they see something in unfamiliar language and it was in turn my personal preference to have that section last. I think of it as more of a important background information - information on the monuments importance and symbolical meaning as well as its own history is given in other sections ---- Xil...sist! 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well good luck! ALTON .ıl 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Support well written, comprehensive with pictures. Maybe only sentence The Freedom Monument has always had political significance. should be referenced, but this is only minor suggestion. As I understand this article may be the first Latvian related FA. Good job, braliukas! M.K. 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In Location, "The canal is 3.2 long"...3.2 WHAT long? meters, miles, ?? Sumoeagle179 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done -- Xil...sist! 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Support nice article.Sumoeagle179 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Support (I have copyedited this article a number of times but have not contributed to the content). This is a very complete and well-researched article (and pretty much the work of the nominator single-handed - well done). HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• A question: would it be possible to use {{Infobox Military Memorial}} here? Kirill 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • O.K. This is the most approporiate infobox I've seen this far, but there are few issues with this box - it dosen't display what "body" stands for, and states that location is "near" the given place, altough in this case it is "in"---- Xil...sist! 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still quite a few POV issues, a thourough copyedit would also be helpful:
  • "It is an important symbol of the freedom, independence and sovereignty of Latvia." That's POV. Although a bit weasel-ish, "It is widely considered an important..." might be more appropriate.
  • "During World War II Latvia was annexed by the USSR and the Freedom Monument was considered for demolition, but no such move was carried out, possibly because of the high artistic value of the monument." "high artistic value" is POV.
  • "In 1990 a section of the street around the monument, about 200 meters long, between Rainis and Aspazija boulevards, was pedestrianised, forming a plaza." and "Although in 1990 the area around the monument was pedestrianised, there are still three streets carrying traffic around it." Should be "pedestrianized" as the rest of the article is in American English ("organized", "mobilized", "criticized", "honor", "center").
  • "At the time of its erection the coup d'etat of May 15, 1934, was regarded as having a significant influence upon building works, thus glamorizing the authoritarian regime established by Kārlis Ulmanis after the coup." What kind of influence? And how did the fact that this memorial had an influence on other building works glamorize that regime?
  • "While they did not expressly call for the demolition of the Freedom Monument, the only way to restore the statue to its original position would have been to tear down the monument, the destruction of which is thus implicit in the suggestion." The last really is redundant.
  • "The Freedom Monument remained, but its symbolism was reinterpreted according to official propaganda." Use of "propaganda" here is POV. You also wouldn't call the meaning given to the Statue of Liberty propaganda. Or today's symbolism of the Freedom Monument, for that matter.
  • "Over time the propaganda also was toned down and by 1988 the monument was said, with somewhat more accuracy, to have been built to "celebrate the liberation from bondage of the autocracy of the tsar and German barons", although withholding the fact that the Bolshevik Red Army and the Red Latvian Riflemen were also adversaries in the Latvian War of Independence." I think "misinformation" is more accurate than "propaganda" in this case.
  • "This event, organized by the human rights group Helsinki-86, was the first time after the Soviet occupation that the flower-laying ceremony took place, as the practice was banned by the Soviet authorities at the time (in fact a running joke during the Soviet era was that the monument was a travel agency, because anyone who placed flowers beside it risked being deported to Siberia)." "At the time" is redundant - obviously the Soviet authorities aren't banning it today.
  • "The event evolved into a political conflict between left and right wingers, posing a threat to public safety." "Posing a threat to public safety" is also POV. "violent political conflict" will do.--Carabinieri 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • O.K. I think I have addresed most of your concerns:
    • YIt is an important symbol of the freedom I added "considered"
    • Y high artistic value Now it says Soviet sculptor Vera Mukhina is sometimes credited with the rescue of the monument possibly because she concidered it to be of the high artistic value.
    • Y pedestrianized - corrected. Thanks for pointing out
    • Y Ulmanis influence and always had political significance - deleted, so it starts after WWII
    • Y the destruction of which is thus implicit in the suggestion - removed
    • Y according to official propaganda - deleted, that part of sentence acctualy is not needed
    • Y propoganda - changed to "misinterpretation of symbolism" as this sentence doesn't folow imediately after Stalinian era is mentioned it should say something that reminds what it is about
    • Y at the time (in fact a running joke during the Soviet era was that the monument was a travel agency, because anyone who placed flowers beside it risked being deported to Siberia) - deleted
    • NPosing a threat to public safety vs. violent political conflict - No, there hasn't been massive open violence, yet the conflicting sides have tried to attack each other, but were stoped by police, thus it's just "posing" as long as there is no harm done---- Xil...sist! 18:57, 23 September 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.