Talk:Mykola Azarov/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my initial review. This article is fairly decent, but there are many problems that need to be fixed. I believe it can be done if the editors want to work on it. I will hold this review for up to a week to allow time for fixes. Aaron north (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failing the article today, nothing has been done yet to address the concerns listed below. Aaron north (T/C) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not mention anything from the last two sections

I don't think there's enough coverage of his early political career. You go from his professional life as a geologist straight to heading the budgetary committee in the ukrainian parliament. How did he get into parliament? When? Was he elected or appointed? Similar problem in the first sentence in the next section, how did he become head of the party of region?

You are jumping around time, the bit about being elected chairman in 2003 should be after his activity in 2002.

This sentence is a bit awkward all around and should be re-worded: (During the first Yanukovych Government governing the set of economic reforms was implemented including fiscal, tax, pensionary, regulatory reforms.)

You need to briefly explain why Yanukovych was unable to resume as prime minister, and probably break up that long sentence about his resignation and Azarov's 2nd period as acting PM.

How did Yanukovych return as PM? election?

In this sentence: (... Azarov was elected the First Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister in the second Yanukovych Government.) was he elected to both positions, or was he elected to the former and appointed as finance minister?

This article seems rather negative. So far I'm basically reading that he has political allies, works in his various elected positions, is "boring", "anti-populist", a "russophile", and prone to gaffes. Maybe he simply is all that and nothing more, but is there no popular or critical support for him? Voters or constituents who speak out in favor of him? If not then I'll take your word for it, but if we are only showing the negatives, then it puts NPOV in doubt.

Could you briefly elaborate on what those court cases filed by women's rights groups are alleging? Any response from him?

All internet sources need web site, title, publisher, publish date (if available), and access date.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing really comes to mind.