Jump to content

Talk:Igor Mangushev

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIgor Mangushev has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2023Good article nomineeListed
January 25, 2024WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 21, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in August 2022, Igor Mangushev spoke on a stage in a Russian nightclub with what he said was the skull of a Ukrainian soldier killed in the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 15, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Edit conflict

[edit]

@CT55555: I hit an edit conflict with you when trying to create the page. There's some good detail I've found on pre-invasion activities, and I'll be adding it shortly. Great minds think alike! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. I wonder what your draft looked like, I'm curious to see. I'm glad you are able to expand this one further. CT55555(talk) 17:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was directly creating it in the mainspace, so that's now lost; basically all of the material on the involvement in the war was in yours (though there's a few sources that I might add in if need be). I've also put this up for RD on ITN; it seems ready IMO. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Red-tailed hawk (talk) and CT55555 (talk). Nominated by Red-tailed hawk (talk) at 18:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Igor Mangushev; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: AGF for online source Google/Brave translated from Czech. Prefer ALT0, since ALT1 is a common occurrence in war. Russian sources are AGF for reliability/quality as well since I am ignorant as to that local news "scene". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Terminology "illegal immigrants"

[edit]

The linked article Illegal immigration#Terminology discuses why using this term to describe people is problematic and probably incorrect, suggesting undocumented migrants. I don't know if WP:MOS addresses this, but I find that convincing. @Red-tailed hawk would you agree to a change? CT55555(talk) 18:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "illegal migrants", the term used in the source to describe the raid itself. There is a difference in connotation between a (transient) migrant and an immigrant, and the source uses "illegal migrant", so I'd prefer to stick to the source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

[edit]

Ukrainain government seems to have a website that lists his birthday. It's consistent with other source, and it's what UkWiki is using to source the birthday, but I haven't encountered this before on EnWiki. Any thoughts on whether the source is reliable for the birth date of this man? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this via Google translates tells me that this organisation is an independent non governmental organisation. It has a complaint process in case information is not accurate. It talks in general terms about where it gets its information from. I would assume it to be not neutral for most information about Russian militia members, however as birth date is fairly non controversial, I would weakly support using this source in this specific context, but that is just informed opinion, not me pointing to any policy or guideline. CT55555(talk) 19:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've added it to the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shot on back of head

[edit]

An IP editor has twice removed the details that he was shot in the back of the head with the edit summary "This kind of information is not crucial and you won't find it in any other articles. It is biased in the sense either a) that it is almost 'celebrating' that this man was 'shot in the back of his head' (if written by a user from, let's say, Ukraine) OR b) that it's making him a martyr for having been 'shot in the back of his head' (if written by a user from Russia). An encyclopedia is supposed to rise above that.)". Diff

What other articles do or do not do, I don't consider relevant, so here is my analysis of what the reliable sources say:

  1. BBC "shot in the head at close range" and "shot at close range with a 9mm bullet fired into the top of his head at an angle of 45 degrees" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64566582
  2. Moscow Times "gunshot wound to the head" https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/08/pro-war-russian-nationalist-executed-in-eastern-ukraine-a80171 (I think Moscow Times is reliable, the database isn't clear)

In the context of his death being described as a possible execution, his manner of death does seem relevant to the article. I think we should report what reliable sources say with neutrality (neither celebrating or martyring) So I propose to add that he was shot in the head at close range. The "back of" bit actually doesn't seem to be widely reported. Seeking consensus for this. CT55555(talk) 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Red-tailed hawk reverted the IP edit, which I support. CT55555(talk) 16:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "back of" is more widely reported in Russian sources. RIA gives затылочно-теменную область, which in English is Occipito-Parietal region (i.e. the back of one's head). The Insider puts it in their headline and in the very first sentence of coverage. It adds precision to the article, in my view, and I don't think that the IP's concerns are warranted here. Also, it's technically block evasion, as this is Russo-Ukrainian war topic and only ECP editors should be editing it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've said it all yourself here - you don't understand what encyclopedias are supposed to include. Proof #1: 'What other articles do or do not do, I don't consider relevant' & Proof #2: You are quoting how newspapers (or other media) articles. One of the main points of having an encyclopedia is to summarize all the IMPORTANT data and not simply copy something from the current/daily report. If you find the style of death so important, which I don't disagree with, then you can simply replace 'he was killed' by 'he was executed'. The actual phrasing 'was shot in the back of the head' is definitely inappropriate here and you can argue about this till you're blue in the face and you still won't be in the right. I couldn't be bothered to log in for this edit, but I bet you you'd change your condescending tone a little if discussing this with a registered user/editor (which I am). Anyway, keep riding your high horse, I don't really care. Sooner or later, someone will drag you down from it and your landing will be hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your comments and be more civil. CT55555(talk) 00:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More civil? How was I uncivil, snowflake? This is exactly why I stopped donating to Wikipedia a few years ago. Jimmy Wales and his bunch have allowed the extreme Left to hijack Wikipedia for own purposes and this article is just another great proof of that. There's no pluralism, no debate. It's your way or the highway. Just remember, each extremist movement usually ends up being obliterated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further namecalling or other incivility will result in you losing your ability to edit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name-calling? To consider 'snowflake' name-calling, you'd have to be really, really weak mentally. LMAO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unable to speak respectfully like a normal human being? Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be speaking here at all for the next 6 months. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination?

[edit]

Do editors think this article is ready for a good article nomination? @Red-tailed hawk? CT55555(talk) 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few scholarly sources that I was going to add today regarding his involvement in Russia's military-industrial complex prior to nominating it for GA, and then I was going to rewrite the lead to comply with MOS:LEAD. I think we're very close, but not quite there yet. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad I checked. I'll not take that step without a positive signal from you. CT55555(talk) 16:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking now that we should probably have more about his early life/education before we nom for GA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally yes. Although I suspect his early life isn't well documented, based on my searches. I've got 4 GAs so far, two are biographies and both were probably lower quality than the article currently is. CT55555(talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: I've added the academic sourcing. There were a few things that flagged his name on google scholar that just wound up not being as useful as I had hoped, alas. Feel free to make the nom. I would ask that you include me in a comment as a co-nom, if you would be ok with doing so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just found some stuff on Wikipedia Library about the "Holy Russia Party". I'm not sure if that is an alternative translation of Svetlaya Rus or if he is also affiliated with a political party that we've missed so far. What do you think?
Also, I nominate a few GAs today and it is just one line of code and I'm not sure how to add you, if you know, maybe you want to do the nomination? CT55555(talk) 03:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Russia Party is possibly(?) Holy Rus (organization), which was created by by Ivan Otrakovsky. My best guess is that they are two related but distinct groups that have a similar name, but... I'm also not sure if I ought open a merge request between that and Svetlaya Rus (Holy Rus is Свята́я Русь, while Svetlaya Rus is Светлая Русь). I think Holy Rus and Svetlaya Rus are different, and absent sources treating them as the same I'm not sure we need include it here.
Would you be willing to drop links to the items that mention the "Holy Russia Party"? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I read in the above link, Holy Rus and Svetlaya Rus are certainly different. The source that identified Igor Mangushev as the leader said "Earlier, the leader of the Holy Russia party, Igor Mangushev, told Interfax"
  • INTERFAX. Ten guest workers detained in Moscow with fake papers - agency. Central Asia Business News, [s. l.], p. 1, 10 nov. 2011. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=67161061&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2023.
CT55555(talk) 04:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's him. I'm now very confused as to if that was a mistranslation when the source was given the name of the group or if we've got a duplicate article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read enough about their activities to feel moderately confident they are two separate things. One is church stuff, another is chasing immigrants through impoverished housing and snitching on them to cops. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think you could just include my name in the comment as a co-nom. The bot won't auto-track it (I'll have to figure out how to get credit from the bot op), but it should be enough to just mark it in a comment for now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are the #1 author by content of this https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Igor_Mangushev but I don't think there is any official tracking of who gets credit for a GA. You can claim this one and ought to and I think it's normal for more than one person to be able to describe themselves as a contributor. CT55555(talk) 04:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There technically is now (the bot ranks you based on your ratio of GAs to GA reviews performed when deciding where in a section to list you), but I'm thinking more for WP:WIKICUP purposes. I'm currently at zero and I'd like to make it out of the first round this year if I can help it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which war

[edit]

@User:Super_Dromaeosaurus you changed words in the lede from the Russo-Ukraine war (2014 start) to the 2022 invasion in the lead, but he was part of the wider/longer war. So I think that was in error? CT55555(talk) 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Check it again [1]. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My bad. I think it always had that 2022 part in the lede, you just made that clearer by adding the "2022". Is that right? Do others agree it should be the wider (2014-starting) war? i.e. he was fighting since 2014, his role didn't start when the war escalated. CT55555(talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on that. But Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. My edits intended to put the target page directly. Super Ψ Dro 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love the use of "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", given that it's, ya know, 2023 and he was active this year. But it's more a matter of preference than anything else — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point, but I find it even more strange that we frame a war that started in 2014 as a 2022 thing. That said, while I can see clearly that he was active in the war since 2014, I only see commentary of his drone work occurring in 2023. So I guess the update is correct, it just seems odd that a fighter in a war that started in 2014, who was been fighting it from 2014 to 2023, is framed as taking part in a 2022 thing. Obviously this isn't the venue to change wikipedia's framing of the war, but I do think dropping the 2022 was better. CT55555(talk) 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: Actives versus Activities

[edit]

Second paragraph, "In addition to his military actives" should be "In addition to his military activities"

Best wishes, Neil WadoNeil (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i fixed it. CT55555(talk) 12:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
PASSED
Comments addressed, article passes GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Igor Mangushev/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Early life

[edit]
  • "As an adult, Mangushev was a Russian nationalist who founded the organisation Svetlaya Rus (Russian: Светлая Русь) in late 2009." Reads a bit odd, consider rewriting slightly. Perhaps "Mangushev grew up to become a Russian nationalist, founding the organisation Svetlaya Rus (Russian: Светлая Русь) in late 2009."
I've made that change. CT55555(talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple sentences in this first paragraph that are about the membership of Svetlaya Rus, but aren't clearly about Igor Mangushev himself. Consider trimming and moving relevant text to the Svetlaya Rus article, in order to maintain focus.
Agree. Have made that change. CT55555(talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "militarising patriotic groups" What does this mean? Does it mean patriotic groups that were in the process of militarisation?
  • Source uses the term "военно-патриотических организаций", so I see how this was arrived at, although maybe "militant patriotic groups", "patriotic military groups" or something similar would be better?
Thanks. An improvement. I've done that. CT55555(talk) 17:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: [6] The term "patriotic movements" is used here, but the source says "patriotic clubs"
Since the edit above, that sentence is no longer in the article. So I consider this now resolved. CT55555(talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That year, the group provided military training at a gathering [...]" Was Mangushev at this event? If not, consider trimming slightly.
The source is silent on his presence. However, he founded the org that same year, so it seems reasonable to link it to him. So I'm gently pushing back here, but this is very much less than any hill that I'll die on. CT55555(talk) 17:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it could be better utilised on the article about the E.N.O.T. Corp. itself. I think the context of "founded to coordinate Russia's nascent militarised patriotic movement." is worth keeping, but still think the info about the training camp could be moved over to the other article. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. CT55555(talk) 12:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military career and mercenary work

[edit]
  • There is a massive time gap between his activities during the 2014 war in Donbas and the 2022 invasion. This needs to be filled, as that's quite a few years where he's unaccounted for in the article.
Very much to my own surprise (I had previously searched extensively) I found a sketchy Russian wiki that I cannot link to here, but which itself linked to that history. I had to discount some sources as I considered them unreliable, but was able to add some history in that missing period. CT55555(talk) 18:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work there! I had a look at the sources and am happy to see they're broadly reliable. I will note that you've misspelled "Bangui" as "Bangii", so it's currently linking to a city in Indonesia, rather than the Central African capital. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Have now fixed Bangui. CT55555(talk) 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider rearranging information to account for chronology. Like having it talk about his role in the 2022 invasion and then jumping back to his activities during the 2019 election is a bit jarring.
Good point. Have addressed. CT55555(talk) 19:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and critic [...]" Consider starting a new sentence here.
I broke that sentence up, but at a different point. I think that flows better. I hope you will support. CT55555(talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Although I'd merge it together with the above paragraph, as they're both rather short paragraphs about the invasion. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done CT55555(talk) 13:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the access details in citation 23 are in Portuguese? This citation could be tidied up a bit to be honest.
The reason is just an error in how I used Wikipedia library. I've fixed it. I'm not great at citation formatting, trying to learn and get better. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. CT55555(talk) 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no worries. Ideally this would have a direct link to the source in question, but I understand that's not always available. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comedy routine" I know that's probably what he called it, but is it really appropriate for us to call it that in Wikivoice?
  • Spotcheck: Source doesn't appear to describe it as a "comedy routine". So aye, this needs to be changed...
Eeek. I've changed that. Thanks. CT55555(talk) 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why Azovstal is in scare quotes here?
It seems clearly an error, so have removed them. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation [1] is the only one that uses an in-line quote, but that quote doesn't actually help verify the text it's cited to here: that he took the skull because a friend's wife wanted it. Consider either removing the in-line quote, or using a different quote for this instance.
I just deleted the quote marks. Is that what you wanted? Or you want me to remove the words too? CT55555(talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I may not have explained myself clearly. In the military career section you quote Mangushev's wife as saying "one friend's wife wanted a skull of a Ukrainian very much". This is cited to Sochnev 2023, which includes a translated quote within the citation: "We had him cremated. [...]" But this quote within the citation doesn't verify the quote about his friend's wife wanting a Ukrainian skull (nor does it verify the bit in the lead about wanting to see Kyiv burn), so I was asking if you could either remove the quote from within the citation or replace it with quotes that do verify what it's cited to. As none of the other citations include quotes from the sources, I would recommend removing the field marked "|quote= [...]" from the citation format. Did I explain that better? Apologies if I haven't. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I understand now. The quote about wanting a skull was from another source and I've changed the citation. Citation 1 earlier cites his wife saying he wanted to see Kyiv burn, so I think that's properly cited. In summary, I think I've fixed it all now. CT55555(talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah fabulous, thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Some of the sources that are in non-English languages ([11]; [14]) aren't provided with language tags. Please tag these properly for accessibility.
I'm wondering if we're working from different versions. In the current version, both are English language and one was tagged. CT55555(talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I figured it out. Earlier edits removed references. Have added the tags to the correct references. Sorry for the confusion. CT55555(talk) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Couple cases of iffy prose, but nothing major.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Do another pass to make sure all the citations are properly filled-out.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    Couple minor cases where the text says something that the source doesn't, noted above. No clear cases of OR.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No obvious cases of plagiarism or copyright violations.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    There's quite a large biographical hole between 2014 and 2022. Sources should at least be gone over to make sure this article isn't missing anything. Biographical hole has been filled, nice work.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Couple cases in the "Early life" section where it loses focus and over-contextualises about an organisation he founded. Consider trimming these to maintain focus. Unnecessary detail has been moved to relevant articles.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    For the most part, it is relatively neutrally-worded. Surprisingly so, considering the subject matter. But there's a few cases of non-neutral wording that need to be dealt with, noted above. Non-neutral wording has been dealt with.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Stable since it was extended-protected in February 2023.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image of Mangushev is properly utilised under fair use. Image of Prigozhin is licensed under creative commons.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are properly captioned and contain very will-written alt text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Holding for now, as there are some issues that I think need to be dealt with before this article can be passed, particularly to do with its coverage. Once these have been seen to, I can take another look at the article and reassess. @CT55555: Nice work on this so far, ping me when you feel like you've adequately addressed the above points. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst Thanks for the helpful review and improvement suggestions. I have addressed all feedback above, including expanded the career gap. There remains a possibility that my citations are imperfect, I'm not very good at them, but welcome any critique. CT55555(talk) 19:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming along nicely! I've responded to your points that I think need further attention, but it's only a couple. No worries about the imperfect citations, I understand they're tricky to get the hang of. With your permission, I may tighten up some of the citations before passing this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the clear direction and collaborative spirit and willingness to give me a chance to fix issues. I think I've fixed everything. I very much welcome any citation fixes you wish to do. CT55555(talk) 13:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I think all the issues have been dealt with now, so I'm more than happy to pass this. Congratulations to you and to your collaborators on this well-written article! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk very much did heavy lifting on this article too. Thanks for the review. CT55555(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Igor_Mangushev&oldid=1256557700"