Talk:Russia/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result: Article listed. Parties in favour of keeping article listed addressed all my concerns. Thank you.Philipmj24 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is the references. From my count, there was seventeen dead links (that alone should fail the article) and several more with connection issues. Also, there are numerous unsourced paragraphs. From the "Modern culture" section down, there are hardly any references at all. In addition, there are 6 dablinks. If no one is willing to fix these references and add more, I don't see any reason why this article should stay GA status.Philipmj24 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep GA status - dead link references are not invalid, there is simply nothing that can be done about that as certain websites go offline. On top of that there are 281 references in the article, meaning that 94% of references are perfectly fine. As the guideline says "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source."--Avala (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep GA status - the lack of references in the Culture section is not a significant matter. Basically the section simply lists the wikilinked names of artists, musicians, buildings, public holidays etc, providing a few words of information on them and avoiding controversial claims. Most of this info can be easily checked by one single click on a link to a corresponding article. Naturally, it would be better if the section was better referenced, but so far as I remember there were no any tags added into the Culture subections. If somebody add a number of such tags into the specific lines of the article that do need a support by a reference, I'll try and work on providing the references. Greyhood (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep GA status. I think the concerns have been adressed. Images have been realigned so that text is not sandwitched. A dead link does not mean the information is unsourced; it just means that a previously online source has now become an offline source. The culture section does not have inline cites, but as Greyhood pointed out, the information comes mostly from other Wikipedia articles, and no cn-tags have been inserted to ask for specific cites. Overall, I think it's a great article and I don't see why the previous consensus to give it a GA status should be overridden. Offliner (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Avala, fair enough about the dead references. But actions can be taken that can prevent a website from going dead. One website I use (http://www.webcitation.org/) can preserve a page forever. As for no references in whole sections, I do think that is a significant matter. Clicking on a corresponding article does not guarantee the information can be checked. I've added unreferenced tags to sections I think need some referencing.Philipmj24 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove GA status

As long as ridiculous claims of current superpower status are maintained in the introduction no reader will take this article seriously. There is no shame removing the GA status unless those patriotic motivated boosterims are cleared of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.149.205 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather support removal of superpower status claims from the intro. But these claims are somehow sourced and presented in a neutral manner, and I don't think that this minor content issue has anything to do with a GA status. Greyhood (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro is fine as Russia is a world superpower as the facts of evidence support the country is a global superpower (it is not ridiculous as too many facts say it is a superpower). I can provide over 90 verified sources in the last 4 years that support Russia is a superpower again. There is no need to change anything to leave it the way it is.

Yes, Russia is an energy superpower and great power, and I hope most people wouldn't challenge this. But naming Russia a superpower without any additional attribute, like energy or military, is a controversial point. So far it is a matter of speculations rather than generally accepted knowledge. And that's why I wouldn't include the line about present superpowerdom into the intro. Anyway, better not be obsessed too much with these power status words. Greyhood (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This article as it stands fails WP:MOSIMAGES, especially due to text sandwiching. If it is to stay a good article, it needs a thorough image purge. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to deal with this problem and removed/rearranged many images. Currently there is no obvious sandwiching, at least on my monitor. Are there any other problems with pictures? Greyhood (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia is one of the largest gas and oil exporter, so what ? Being a provider of raw material (only) is the typical wholemark of a third world country. Russia ceased to be a so called superpower in 1989. The last 10 years it was not even a full G8 member. Today its a BRIC country like India or Brazil. Its economy is smaller than Spain. The introduction needs clear cut facts not wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.1.108 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no need to turn this discussion into political forum, the question of political status is irrelevant to the question of GA status. Secondly, one should understand a distinction between nominal and real economy, as well as the subtle difference between a 3rd world country and a country that has a capability to destroy the world a few times. My strong suggestion is to discuss the issue about one single line on superpower status in a separate topic on Russia's talk page, not here. Greyhood (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to discuss it right here because a sentence of half superpower sources and half non-superpower sources in the lead is absurd. This is poor style, not worth of GA. Nobody in the world counts nuclear capabilities as prime reason for power, because all developed countries have them. Again Russia has long ceased to be a superpower, it has almost no influence outside its borders. Cultural, technological or economic clout is missing, apart from the resources. Get real: Russia loses its brains to the west and needs the west expertise to raise its standard of living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.1.108 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP, your views on the global politics and nuclear capabilities are rather funny and naive, and you are either stubborn pessimist regarding Russia or just have missed all the developments in the country in the last 10 years. But I don't want argue about this. Simply to put an end to this matter quickly I've boldly removed the phrase on current superpower status. Now, I hope Globalstatus will read this: there are too few academic sources supporting the claim on Russia's superpower status, it is inappropriate to place these speculations in the intro, it is unclear whether they should be inserted in the different place and what a place that could be. My suggestion is to insert these sources into potential superpowers article first, and leave the question of Russia being full-fledged superpower out of the scope of Russia article. Greyhood (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good call to remove the speculation about superpower status from the lead. It really felt out of place there. Offliner (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)