Talk:Russian Five

Untitled

Isn't the Russian Five also a group of classical music composers? I think it was Balakirev, Cui, Borodin, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov. (If school classes served me right) Can someone who knows more than me fill in a page for this? The above is about as far as my knowledge on the subject goes. Also known as the Mighty Five and Mighty Handful

I know that this is a little old but yea you are right the article is here The Mighty Five. again it might be old but if you are still wondering William McCormick 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BelievePatch.jpg

Image:BelievePatch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit regarding propaganda

IP user 188.65.245.47 has been trying to make an edit countring Devellano's claim about America's protrayal of Russia. My chief concern is that none of the sources directly discuss American media, only Russian media. I also noted that the Washington Examiner link is marked with "No Consensus" on WP:RSP. I'm open to other's thoughts, but I don't believe the edit should be added as-is. I've included it in full below for your consideration.

"It should be noted, however, that American propaganda never sought to depict the Russian people as the enemy, focusing only on the doings of the Soviet government. Meanwhile, the USSR frequently depicted all the Americans as the enemy."

Please use the space below to discuss. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Balancing the political statements

Hello! There is quote in the final paragraph that misrepresents what Cold War propaganda was about. It leaves an impression that the US government was actively working to depict all Russians as the enemy of an average American, something that is not entirely true. Meanwhile, it fails to mention the Soviet government's anti-Americanism and its influence on the minds of the Soviet citizens. I would propose adding some information about that, similar to what I added before it was removed. If you think it can be made more neutral, please feel free to voice your ideas. Thank you! 188.65.245.47 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not why that quote is there at all. It's a specific quote from one of the main players that brought the Russian Five to Detroit, and it's his own words talking about how the impact meeting those guys had on him. It's directly relevant to the subject of the article. The things you're trying to add are just purely political for politics' sake. In other words, they don't belong here. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian Five/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• I've archived the references
• 11 of the sources are to the same source -[1] This makes it seem like we have much more talking about the topic than we are.
• Could you add some ISBNs and page numbers?
• You link to a youtube channel twice, but I'm not sure what you are actually citing to - is it a movie? Was it credited?
• After the Russian Five section is tiny, and is uncited.

Prose

Lede

• Could we merge the paragraphs together a bit? There's four tiny ones, whereas two would be suitable.
• The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. As far as I can tell, the notable bits are:

1. The Russian Five is five players playing for the wings between 1989 and 2002.
2. The five players won the stanley cup in 97
3. Four of the five also won the title in 98
4. They changed how the sport was played and taught since

I would change the lede to mention these things, and then maybe how they were all brought-in and removed.

General

• Hmm, I got most of the way through this before I realised I wasn't going to be able to pass a GAN for this. The above citing issues makes it so the vast majority of the prose is written from one source, and statements such as "despite their talents being on par with North American and Western European players." being uncited. Here's a few things I picked up, if you can fix the disparity in sources and want to go to GAN again:

1. If you have a quote, you need a citation specifically for it
2. The word "defect" is used here, and I have no idea why. The countries aren't at war
3. The first image seem completely irrelevent.
4. Some terms, such as the World Championships needs wikilinking
5. "I used the theory, who are we gonna get here now in the 4th round from North America, really?" - without explaination, I have zero idea what he's saying
6. There's a lot of dis-proportionate paragraphs. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but these could all be a standard size
7. The 3-5 sections could easily be under a section 2 header
8. Most of the article talks about 1990, and then jumps to 1997. They had other parts to their time, right?
9. After the Russian Five is tiny, and should be fleshed out.

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA and FA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

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.

Addressed issues

I went ahead and addressed the issues that the reviewer pointed out. A small handful of them were not addressed, detailed here with my responses to the reviewer:

• 11 of the sources are to the same source - This makes it seem like we have much more talking about the topic than we are.

It's true that the book "Russian Five" is cited 11 times. However, that's because the book contains a wealth of knowledge of the subject of the article, and I cited items from many different chapters. Also, there are now 25 other sources in the article. I do feel that 26 total sources is plenty.

• Could you add some ISBNs and page numbers?

I added ISBNs. I have only the e-book, not the hard copy, and the page numbers change based on the size of the window that I use when reading the book in iBooks. There's no preview of the book available in Google Books. Also, Wikipedia:Good article criteria does not mention page numbers as a criterion.

• The word "defect" is used here, and I have no idea why. The countries aren't at war

Defections from the Soviet Union to the United States during the Cold War were plentiful - we even have an entire category called "Soviet defectors to the United States" and a List of Soviet and Eastern Bloc defectors. Sources use the word "defect" with regards to the three players' journeys to the NHL.

• The first image seem completely irrelevent.

All five players played in the jersey in that image before they came to the NHL. I didn't add the image originally, but I think it's relevant, so I left it.

• Most of the article talks about 1990, and then jumps to 1997

I don't see this. The article talks about every single season, in some context, between 1988 and 1998. I don't know what jump you're referring to.

JimKaatFan (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian Five/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm going to be taking a look at this GAN. Any section marked with a  Working tag means I haven't finished going through it, but feel free to start making changes as soon as they're listed here! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

• "played for the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League."
• "via trades from the New Jersey Devils and San Jose Sharks."
• Red Wings coach Scotty Bowman played the five together as a unit at times from October 1995 to June 1997, but also mixed and matched them with other teammates. This statement is not mentioned anywhere in the body.

It is - it is in the first and last sentences of the "The Five on the Red Wings" section. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

• Put NHL in parentheses after referencing the National Hockey League
• All sites falling within the SB Nation domain are considered unreliable, based on this discussion. Unfortunately, they're more of a fanblog than hard-hitting journalism.This NYT article talks about Pryakhin, while this NHL.com article talks about Nechayev.
• Similarly, the Russia Beyond article is owned by Russia Today, which is considered a depreciated source and should not be used.
• The NYT source about Mogilny does not say that he was the 89th overall pick -- this needs a different citation.
• WL defection

Acquiring the Five

Fedorov and Konstantinov

• WL the Detroit Red Wings the first time that they're mentioned.
• Pipe "Hall-of-Famer" to Hockey Hall of Fame.
• "drafted Fedorov in the fourth round," per MOS:NUMBERS.
• Comma after "he later said"
• WL defenceman
• "Gave spoke Russian, and had a media credential that would enable him to get into an exhibition game in Helsinki where the Soviet national team was scheduled to play a Finnish elite-level club." → "Not only did Gave speak Russian, but his media credentials would enable him to get into an exhibition game in Helsinki, where the Soviet national team was scheduled to play a Finnish club." with all the pipes
• "Gave agreed to the mission, and in August 1989, he managed to meet with the players after their game and slip them each a Red Wings media guide with a letter hidden inside."
• Who was the exhibition match against?
• Pipe army to Soviet Army.

Vyacheslav "Slava" Koslov

• commas around "including Lites and assistant GM Nick Polano"
• WL to Regina, Saskatchewan
• WL peripheral vision

Fetisov and Larionov

• WL Western Conference (NHL)
• Who did they lose to in the 1994 playoffs?
• "traded a future third-round draft pick to the Devils" (assuming that's what happened and they didn't trade someone who was already drafted)
• WL Calgary.
• "We would have five (Russians) then, and if you ever want to, you could play them together." All direct quotes need a citation at the end of the sentence.

The Five on the Red Wings

• "led the team with five assists."

1997 Stanley Cup Finals

• "In the Finals, Detroit faced the Philadelphia Flyers." → "Detroit faced the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1997 Stanley Cup Finals."
• Pipe MVP to Hart Memorial Trophy, the MVP award that Lindros won in 1995
• Pipe 42 years to 1955 Stanley Cup Finals, the last time they won
• Delink Steve Yzerman and Joe Louis Arena, which were linked earlier in the body
• Comma after "skated over to Igor Larionov" and after "skated around the rink"
• The entire second paragraph needs to be altered. Every sentence with a direct quote needs a citation at the end of the sentence, even if all of those quotes are from the same source.

Limousine accident

• Pipe "severe head injuries" to traumatic brain injury

1997-1998 season

• I would like to see more citations for the last two paragraphs, which currently only cite the Gave.

After the Russian Five

• Would prefer some more information on Kozlov's career post-Sabres.
• Specify years that the three were inducted into the Hall of Fame

Legacy

• This section needs more sources. The claims that the Russian Five had a serious impact on ice hockey should be addressed by more than one writer. Until then, it's hard to argue the neutrality of this section.

References

• Make sure to archive all online references using the tool
• Make sure that you WL to all publications whenever possible
• For [1], use The Hockey News as the work, and Sports Illustrated as the publisher
• Include |url-access=limited for the Athletic citation (6)
• Use ESPN.com as the work for [8] and [23]
• For [15] and [24], MLive.com is the work, and MLive Media Group is the publisher
• It's always The New York Times, not just "New York Times"
• For [26], AP News is the work, and the Associated Press is the publisher
• For [34], Grantland is the work, and ESPN is the publisher
• For [35], Yahoo Sports is the work, and Yahoo is the publisher
• The chapter titles for Keith Gave's book are inconsistent over whether there's a space between "Ch.#" and the chapter title. I prefer there to be a space there, but consistency is the most important.

Other

• Earwig copyvio score looks solid at 28.6%.
• Edit history looks stable. One problem editor blocked on February 8.
• The image of the Soviet Union hockey jersey was mentioned in the last GAN. This is the Soviet national team jersey -- did any of them play for the national team? If not, it looks like all of them played for CSKA Moscow, so maybe there's a relevant photo from that club that can be used.
• The other photos look fine!

Reasons for failure in the first GA:

• 11 of the sources are from the same source.
  • The same number of references are to the one Keith Gave book. However, it has gone from making up 38% of the total sources to 29%. I'd still like to see some more reduction, but this is an improvement.
• Many statements are left uncited.
  • Most direct quotes now have citations attached.

Final comments and verdict

This is an improvement from the initial GA submission. However, there are still some issues with citations, specifically some unreliable sources in the beginning and a continued over-reliance on the Gave book. I'm willing to put this on hold while these issues are addressed, and would be happy to help find better sources for specific statements. Feel free to reach out if you need anything! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@JimKaatFan: Just checking in. Usually articles are left on hold for 7 days, but I'm willing to leave it open as long as there's communication or work being done. Just let me know. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I had pretty much quit editing Wikipedia after an incident (at a different article) that soured me on the entire process. I was completely demotivated and disgusted. But since you took the time to do such a thorough review, I will make the changes you recommend. Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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.