Wikipedia:Featured article review/Constitution of Belarus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 14:17, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: User:Stephenb, User:LonelyMarble,‎ User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Prodego, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, User:Ascidian‎, User:Keilana‎, User:Diligent Terrier, User:JimDunning‎, User:Zscout370, User:Lacrimosus

This article fails several FA criteria (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2b, 3). Given the large number of issues it is probably not even deserving of GA status at present. It was chosen as an FA with just four (five, if the nominee is included) votes to two.

It reads as a summary of the contents of the Belarusian constitution and uses phrasing such as "approved by the Belarusian populace" to describe the referendums of 1996 and 2004, which were not up to international standards (in the article, this phrase wikilinks only to Referendum), and were widely held to have been falsified by President Alexander Lukashenko. The article headings are all capitalized, and no indication is given as to whether these headings are, in fact, titles. Strike-through text The background on the constitution and its evolution from Belarus's Soviet-era legal framework is rather thin, and it states that the country's 1990 independence declaration occurred "when Belarus became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991". The competing referendums of 1996 (first called by the parliament, then a rival referendum called by the president) are not described at all, nor are the allegations of fraud surrounding Lukashenko's referendum, and the fact that its end result was largely to do away with the constitution altogether. The article rather drolly states "In this amendment voted by referendum a number of significant changes were made to the Constitution, usually in order to strengthen the grip on power of the president"; in fact, this was seen by the opposition as a constitutional coup that eliminated the influence of parliament altogether, replacing it with a bicameral rubber-stamp assembly answerable only to the president. Other articles, such as Elections in Belarus, do a better job of mentioning the irregularities (including state-sponsored assassinations) that hinder political opposition.

We learn that both "referendums" extended Lukashenko's "term in office": "The voter turnout for the referendum was nearly 90%, with 77.3% of the voters agreeing to the amendment.[25] The changes were implemented on 2004-10-17.[31] Two years later, Lukashenko ran in the 2006 election and won with 83% of the vote during the first ballot.[32] With no term limits, Lukashenko states that, depending on his health, he will not retire from politics and might run for reelection in 2011.[33]" That's an interesting way of putting things, but it's not WP:NPOV. The only indication that this might not be perfectly democratic is the final paragraph: "Both referendums were severely criticized by the political opposition inside Belarus as well as by international observers, such as the OSCE. They state that both referendums were non-transparent, and that the real results were not published. Observers were not allowed to see the process of counting ballots.[34]"

There has already been concern expressed about the FA status on the article's talk page. This article needs a lot of work just to address the issue of WP:NPOV and addressing all aspects of its subject.

ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) *Delist as nom. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why that section is thin because me and everyone else on that FAC cannot find anything in either English, Russian or Belarusian. Keep in mind a lot of sources cannot be found about Belarus, since not many people write about certain aspects of the country. From what I notice here, most wanted more information about the referendums that modified the Constitution. We have articles about those said referendums, so we can add relevant information there. Trying to keep a balance on just describing this document, without making it a general bashing of just Belarus or Lukashenko, is pretty hard. That sentence pointed out by ProhibitOnions, that was a quote by Lukashenko himself to a Belarusian newspaper on his future plans. He did mention about his health as a factor for running for office in 2011. I'm going to look over this, and maybe try to fix POV issues, but I wasn't intentionally trying to put any. But just keep in mind of the undue weight I mentioned earlier and keep in mind of what I said about Belarus in general. PO, please work with me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to, and I don't mean anything against you for posting this (I'll be the first to commend you for putting a lot of work into the article). However, at present I can't agree with it being a FA, and I can't see it being easy to fix it enough to remain one. You agree there is a lack of sources (or at least online ones), and the article leaves out the important issue of the opposition movement and the (credible accusations of) manipulation of the constitution and referendums to end whatever democracy there had been in Belarus and to eliminate any challenge to Lukashenka's absolute rule (even though he'd probably have won an election if it were free and fair). FWIW, I was in Belarus very often at the time of the 1996 referendum and I kept a clip file from the newspapers, I've been looking all over for it, with no success so far! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And keep in mind that I am a US citizen since birth, so whatever knowledge you have about Belarus in general is going to be more than what I can ever dig up. That is what hurt me at the FAC, but it still passed anyways. Hmm...I'll see if I can add a section about the opposition to the Constitution, but I don't want that to dominate the article about the document. I also added links to the articles about the specific referendums, so any specific information and quotes about the irregularities can be placed there. The articles about the elections are supposed to be summaries anyways. Just give me some time PO, it will be made back to FA standard. I have a copyedit request going on now, so many of the issues discussed on the talk page about prose is going to be fixed when someone gets around to it. The headers have been toyed around with before, but I am not sure on how to make it shorter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a section about issues with the document, so I hope that helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About the headings, I just had them as Article 1, Article 2, etc; but when it was on the Main Page recently, users have asked if the headings can have titles. From the book I own at my house, each sections do have a title and are translated into English at the website of President Lukashenko. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what now? Anything else needs to be done? Anything specific that needs to be fixed? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contains Politics of Belarus Template, which references Constitutional Court of Belarus article. The last article is very short, so the reader isn't able to find basic data about Judicial interpretation in Belarus. I believe that a FA should include links to needed articles. An article lacking its context cannot be FA, because a reader isn't able to understand it, even if the article is correctly written. Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitution_of_Belarus#Section_Four:_The_President.2C_Parliament.2C_Government.2C_the_Courts contains a link to the Constitutional Court and some stats about interpretation about laws and the constitutionality of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Court reviewed 101 laws and decrees; they were deemed to be constitutional. Wow!Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is the latest stats I found when I wrote that line. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Plus, it has an image, so how can I fail WIAFA 3? It is an official booklet published by the Belarusian Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I wouldn't say the problems here are anywhere near the depth posited by ProhibitOnions, but there are some significant issues. Mainly 1a. I used United States Constitution as a frame of reference in judging 1b, and I don't note any major "missing" items considering the sources available. I have attempted to call out examples as I think a dedicated copyeditor could fix up the article within the scope of this FAR. In examples where information is missing, some research may be required. I can help with copyediting but probably not with researching.
  • General prose concern: The article is written almost exclusively in the passive voice, which does not make for smooth prose. I recommend taking a look at each sentence - when the subject is known and when the subject is the focus of the sentence, rewrite in active voice. Example: "The first Constitution of Belarus was signed on March 15, 1994 by the Speaker of the Supreme Soviet and Head of State Myechyslaw Hryb..."
  • Some uses of the passive voice actually eliminate the subject of the sentence when it should be stated. Example: "Three drafts of the proposed constitution were submitted to the Supreme Soviet deputies before it was adopted into law on March 28, 1994." This use omits who submitted the drafts, and therefore we don't know who wrote them. In fact, I can't readily find this information anywhere in the article.
  • "nine sections (including eight chapters)" Does this mean each of nine sections has eight chapters? It's unclear.
  • "The structure and substance of the Constitution were heavily influenced by constitutions of Western powers and by the nation's..." I would name Belarus again instead of saying "the nation".
  • "The use of this constitution continued..." Why not: "Belarus continued to use this constitution until..."
  • That same sentence has some hyphens with non-breaking spaces. Please see WP:DASH. You want either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes. Check the whole article for these.
  • "After the implementation of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, Belarus, now the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted a constitution in 1927." Unclear.. what constitution did Belarus adopt at this time? Not the Soviet one, you seem to be saying, and not the one that is the subject of this article.
  • Is "Zvezda" a newspaper? If so, should be italicized.
  • "The delay occurred due to debates among members of the Supreme Soviet, who were also trying to stave off the opposition and democratic forces who wanted to close the Supreme Soviet down for good." Maybe it's outside the scope of this article, but I'm not clear why the Supreme Soviet still had a say in things after the Soviet Union was dissolved.
  • "When drafting the Belarus Constitution, its authors..." Again, who?

I'll have to pick this up again later when I have time to review the actual content sections. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am fixing some of the grammar issues, but I have asked for a Copyedit about a month ago; the same time the article was on the Main Page. As for the Supreme Soviet; each Soviet Republic had their own legislature, just like each American state or Canadian province has one. Each of the SSR's assemblies were called the Supreme Soviet. From 1991 until 1996, the Supreme Soviet of Belarus was the only legislature. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can tag-team this one. Can you work on finding a source for who the authors were? I can do some copyedits here and there over the next few days. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my point in listing this has been made. The sources available are weak and one-sided; the Constitution of the United States is a false comparison, as the Belarusian constitution is barely in effect; as the article hints at only in the last section, has been largely swept aside in favor of a personal dictatorship for life of the previously constitutionally elected officeholder (this included credible accusations of murder and imprisonment of political opponents, ballot-stuffing, and the heavy skewing of parliamentary voting rights to favor the president's rural strongholds and exclude the larger cities). The controversy regarding the referendums is not mentioned. Neutral-sounding language is used where this is not appropriate, giving an impression of impartiality ("approved by the populace") to actions of one side, where there was a national dispute (which is not mentioned). Furthermore, the related articles linked to in the Belarus politics infobox are themselves weak and often incoherent and one-sided, and fail to provide adequate context. None of these is an issue that can be quickly fixed by some tag-team editing (and I'll be glad to help improve it when I have time). The article is a good start. But it's not an FA - not even close. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions, I didn't mean to suggest that the article could be "quickly fixed" or indeed, to impugn your comments at all. I simply disagree with them. I used the US Constitution article as comparison because ultimately, I think this article needs to be primarily about the document; the volumes of political strife surrounding it might be better covered in another article such as Politics of Belarus or even History of the Constitution of Belarus. I'm sure there were nefarious deeds surrounding the US Constitution as well but those would be outside the scope of the article about the document. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The status of other articles should not, and will not, affect the status of this article. The same issues with all referendums are hinted at in the last section on purpose; the article is supposed to be about the document itself, not around meta issues. Specific information about problems with the votes should be placed on the articles about the elections. As Laser brain said, and as I said before, this article should focus about the document itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the phony referendums are not "meta issues". They heavily amended the constitution, allowing it to be set aside and used as an occasional figleaf for Lukashenka's policies; in effect, the constitution was totally changed in 1996 to allow absolute rule. This belongs in the article, and offloading it to a link that doesn't provide any information on the controversy, only two lists of questions, means that something is missing from this article. It's not FA quality, sorry. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So PO, is this what you are looking for or not? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also expanded a bit about the 2004 vote. Honestly, I personally think with the information I am adding, more emphasis is seeming to be placed on just one or two sections of this article. I believe I am getting close providing undue weight. I am thinking of just putting more information, which can go more in depth about he votes, at Amendments to the Belarusian Constitution and link that to this article. Does this sound fair? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is written well, comprehensive and neutral - to a reasonable extent; there are a few odd stumbling blocks like the "approved by the Belarusian populace" (we should make it clear that's the government claim) - but overall it is much better than most of possible FARCs. It was also recently promoted, and is quite up to our modern standards. I suggest reviewing in two years or such, there are other more important cases ATM :) PS. Changes like this are definitely a step in the right direction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and had another look at the article. I'd say that a lot of the substantial issues have now been addressed. Good work, folks. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To be comprehensive this article should cite works by legal scholars who have analyzed Constitutions of Belarus, without such references this article looks amateurish too. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for works by legal scholars about the document, no such luck. I have found so far documents saying legal scholars have said x or y, but not a true analysis that you seek. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have completed a "once-over" of the article to correct prose issues but I will go over it again to pick up things I might have missed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my delist comment, as it seemed there was little participation in this review by outside editors. The article is now significantly improved, but, especially in the section regarding the referendums, it does lean heavily on Belarusian government websites -- ie, one of the parties in the dispute -- and is still rather one-sided (it omits the parliamentary referendum proposal of 1996, and brushes over the changes Lukashenko made in 1995 that allowed him to dissolve parliament on "corruption" charges). Issues such as the adoption of the Soviet-era flag in 1995 are also constitutional changes. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to focus on the document itself, but I understand what you mean about the flag and emblem are constitutional changes. Article 19 stipulates the national symbols of the nation and each article on the symbols are also Featured. I mentioned the 1995 vote, but when I look at sources, they mostly focus on the flag and emblem changes. Can you link me to the 1996 parliamentary referendum proposal so I can look at it sometime this weekend? But as for editor participation, you could have asked on the talk page and I would have helped you about this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), POV (1d), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This has seen a good deal of article. Moving to get comments on status. Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the nominator has withdrawn his major objections. The prose needs another good copyedit to meet 1a, but that should be easy to accomplish. I was never sure how the article didn't meet criterion 3. The existing image has a correct copyright status and I'm not sure what other images could improve the article. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to ask about the images but I didn't get a response about them. The image displayed now is of a photo of a booklet printed by the Belarusian Government that I own. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, per 1c (only one ref citing works by legal scholars).--Doopdoop (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doopdoop, this is not a realistic expectation for this article. A serious scholarly work on this document, if it exists at all, would almost certainly be in Russian and probably inaccessible. --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are hundreds of millions of Russian speaking people in the world... --Doopdoop (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If a Russian user wants to add legal commentary by scholars, then sure, he or she is welcome too. But I keep on looking for English sources and I have not found much yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as main author. Doopdoop mentions that there is lack of legal scholars dealing with sourcing. I am going to look for more sources now, but I cannot promise to have everything cited by legal scholars. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I acknowledge that the article is not as critical of Lukashenko as it could or should be, however, I'm not sure it's fair to oppose on the grounds that the article is too neutral. I have no problem with the other criteria. On a very minor (almost negligible) MoS point, the dates in the references are not uniformally formatted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the dates, I used this as a way to format the citations. Some sources I have full dates on, and others I don't. If I find to happen more information about the dates, they will be fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.