Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Russia/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. There were issues identified around neutrality, source quality, unsourced statements, and summary style/recentism. These issues have largely been addressed over the course of the GAR by various editors: all inline tags have been addressed, the Putin section has been trimmed, and the economy section updated. There is no consensus that the remaining issues (mostly verifiability and summary style) warrant delisting. Femke (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like fifteen "better source needed" tags have been added—I don't think the article meets GA status with those still there, so those will have to be resolved one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those tags, it is difficult to see how an article with one section long enough to be its own article meets 3b. CMD (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm yet to see an actual discussion on the usage of Statisa, so would really recommend that being discussed before a GAR. I don't feel like the article is unnecessarily long, especially as everything is already suitably split. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statista obscures the source (impossible to view without logging in) and general methodology for any graphs. If they are cited, it should only be cited by an editor with a Statista account who notes where the data is from in the wiki reference. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion at WP:RSN about Statista. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the food section there are several meals/dishes unsourced. Beef Stroganoff seems obvious, but it's unsourced. And if a pancake is with meat I am a bit in doubt, unsourced, I'd prefer to see the Pirozhki in another phrase than the one with pancakes.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: I added book sources to back all of the dishes. Thelastcheck (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for better refs for WW2. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, @RoseCherry64: and @Paradise Chronicle: I have fixed all of the unreliable sources across the article. Thelastcheck (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good article at all. It is far too Putin-friendly and not neutral. The arcticle suggests that Russia is a democracy (infobox):

"Government Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic[5]" which is obviously not true. And also later on: "Russia is an asymmetric federation,[227] and semi-presidential republic, wherein the president is the head of state,[228] and the prime minister is the head of government. It is fundamentally structured[clarification needed] as a multi-party representative ****democracy****, with the federal government composed of three branches:". The associated German article is much more neutral: "De jure semi-presidential republic (federal republic), de facto defective democracy with autocratic to despotic features". Furthermore, the part criticizing the Russian government is a very short section in this article. Ukraine gets a lot of support nowadays but not from the English Wikipedia that sides too much with Putin's view. Nulli (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship according to https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/11/13/vladimir-putin-has-shifted-from-autocracy-to-dictatorship Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that The Economist article more authoritative than the The World Factbook? The CIA and United States government isn't on great terms with Russia, so biased source isn't applicable. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 GDP has a source from well before the end of 2021 - have the official 2021 GDP figures not been published yet? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article's data isn't in fact old. Plus, the article is not of "poor" quality for GA. Most of its problems could be fixed in a jiffy. Not even anything close to bring about a talk of demotion. Thesickreservoir (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point of view but with everything that's happening right now it really isn't a stable article. Just look at how much has been changed in the past two months since its approval alone! Something that needs to be updated this frequently really should not be considered a GA, because then it would need constant re-reviewing. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the changes are simply source changes. The article has almost 600 reliable sources, and well-written suitably divided sections. It doesn't exactly get updated very frequently, but vandalised a lot. Which is why it got extended protected. This article is definitely more up-to-date and in a better shape than some other GA class articles such as Philippines or Azerbaijan - but their content does not get challenged as much because they simply do not get many views. Thesickreservoir (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, this article is below average and really not good because it contains too many untrue , biased, and questionable statements. Nulli (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Below average? Have you seen most country articles in Wikipedia? What would you call them? Stop the exaggeration. First of all, you have just about 10 edits on the English Wikipedia. Second of all, have you even read the article itself? Maybe besides cherry-picking some sentences, and declaring it "below average" and "very bad", give some examples, and they could be modified, or even removed entirely. This is not even a big issue. As I said before, this could easily be fixed. How does a "very bad" article even pass the GA review, without a lot of hesitation? But most people, even in here, just complain and do nothing. Its been almost a month since this reassessment started, and literally nothing came out of it. Thesickreservoir (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get angry. I just gave my opinion. For me it looks like a guy from the Russian government has written it. I dont say it cannot be fixed. By the way, I am not allowed to edit anything here, because the article is semi-protected. Nulli (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Why would an article written by someone from the Russian government mention extensive human rights abuses and corruption; while noting that the country is currently going through a demographic collapse? And why would he write about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and about how the Soviets joined the Nazis in invading Poland? By the way, the article isn't "semi" protected, its extended protected. Thesickreservoir (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here another example: "It has the world's most powerful ground force,[272] and the second-most powerful air force and navy fleet." This really sounds as being written by Putin's staff members. Wikipedia should be committed to the truth and not to the propaganda, especially for "good" articles. Nulli (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the truth. The sentence about the "ground force" seems dubious however, and could be replaced with the fact that Russia has the world's largest tank fleet. However, the fact that it has the second-most powerful navy and air force is backed by multiple reliable sources. You are the one pushing a POV here, and you even admitted to that. Thesickreservoir (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better now, my main points have been resolved. Nulli (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait @Thesickreservoir: seems keen to update but won't have access for a couple of weeks. Also by that time we will hopefully have better sources on how badly the economy and military have been hit. Meanwhile @Thesickreservoir: I really suggest you bring the more detailed pages up to date. People who disagree with your sources will perhaps duke it out there rather in this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Since the article was listed as good the economy has changed a lot but the economy section has not been updated enough - so that section at least is way below "good" standard. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Since the principal author of this GA was blocked in action, and the only person willing to fix it is the nominator (via sockpuppetry), it looks to me like the valid and disqualifying issues here aren't going to be solved. I don't the Thesickreservoir is up to it at the moment; if they ever do come back to fix it, they can renominate. In the meantime, let's not waste more weeks on this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC
  • Delist As I looked through the article I also found some uncited info about thousands! of killed Russian civilians in terrorist! attacks by Chechen separatists! and other kind info of sourced like Deutsche Welle and Radio Free Europe. That Yeltsin was backed by western powers and the more presidential powers that arose from a referendum should have better sources than the Deutsche Welle or Radio Free Europe. There is very likely to be found a scholar at JSTOR who wrote about it. And this is just after a short review of the article. It's my second one, and if I really go through the article I might find more as well. The discussion is going on for quite some time now and I if terrorist attacks still remain unsourced after weeks, I guess delist is the correct vote.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After a bit a thorough review, I bring some more.
    • At section Cold War there is a uncited "collective rule" which follows Khuruchchews leadership, then under Breshnev there is an uncited "era of stagnation".
    • Then the whole section on the Putin era is probably recentism and a lot of it might be undue compared to the other leaders. 1 section and 3 paragraphs for Putin and none for either Breshnev or Khuruchtchev and not even Lenin or Stalin get their own paragraph. I'd just make a phrase or two on the Ukraine, other suggestions are welcome here.
    • in Soviet Union the troika is also unsourced, also a clarification would be nice.
    • In Tourism there is better source needed tag.
    • In Military there are also some issues.
    • In Literature and philosophy Leninism and Trotskyism both could need a source, too. A whole ideology might have a volume on it which could be used as a source.
    • Foreign relations might need an update on Council of Europe and some sources and clarifications on what a potential superpower, great power or regional power is.
    And then there is a comment: I have also noticed that there are several sources with page ranges of more than 10 pages. I have checked on other GA's and seen that this seems to be accepted, much also at older GA's, but I also saw GA's (mostly newer ones) with sources that have page ranges of 1 or 2. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradise Chronicle: I found a source about the Chechen terrorist attacks, which mentions the exact deaths from them. This can be used to back the sentence, and you can add it if you want to.[1] Thesickreservoir (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, well good. None of the points I raised above over 10 days ago, have been addressed. For Leninism and Trotskyism I brought a source myself. Since, the article became less stable as some discussion about the lead was going on. What's the difference between a Superpower, great power and regional power? At least source it, so the reader can verify what is meant. Then neither the membership in the APEC nor the OSCE are sourced. For now I am not interested enough in the article Russia to edit it enough in order to keep it a GA, sorry. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, maybe delist Delist Other editors than the blocked account has worked on this. I fixed two quick citation needed tags just now (also added two tags per discussion above). One of those tags I fixed was a citation needed added to an unclear MOS:OSNS date. I fixed the date as the reason given for CN was actually not about citation, but unclear significance of the number. I don't really like working on articles this large that doesn't use shortened footnotes, so I don't think I'll do any further work myself. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think enough time has passed without improvement for me to lean delist. A more extensive GA review is probably needed if this is going to be promoted in the future. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as others have noted (and following my initial comment), this article is very long. All this going through various individual sources and statements pales in comparison to that challenge (and indeed the size issue makes checking the individual sources very much harder). No user, not even the blocked nominator, has shown a willingness to address this issue, and while unaddressed it makes all other checks greater timesinks. CMD (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the issues got fixed. None of the issues are very serious anyway, and not enough for a demotion. Article might be large in size, but its well divided into sections, and can be easily read throughout. Thesickreservoir (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Renat 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a couple of days your user-id will have been around long enough, but you don't have enough edits to have access to update this article. Do you think you will have time, health and willpower to fix the issues mentioned above? If so as I suggested above I again suggest you prepare the ground by editing more detailed Russia articles. As others have mentioned above it looks like it would be a lot of work, so I don't blame you if you prefer to do easier stuff. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the moment there are no citation needed tags and at 70k prose it is long, but not excessive (especially for country articles). It falls within the Wikipedia:Article size guidelines. I am not seeing a lot else here relating to the criteria. This is an overview of the whole country throughout history, so asking for continuous updates is not compatible (especially given one complaint is the length). Also the nominator being blocked doesn't automatically make his work bad. I agree the Putin section is a but recentism so trimmed that back. The other issues seem to be a bit on the harsh side for a Good Article (maybe if Featured) Aircorn (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My thoughts reflect what Aircorn stated. There are only 2 inline templates left and the Putin section needs some work; I don't think delisting is necessary. Wretchskull (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sinai, Joshua (2015). "The Terrorist Threats Against Russia and its Counterterrorism Response Measures". 14 (4). Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes: 95–102. JSTOR 26326421. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Russia/1&oldid=1088113681"