Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russia/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.

Russia

edit

previous FAC

Self nomination. I have been working on this article for quite a while now and believe it now meets all of the criteria. The main problem at the last FA nomination was the insufficient number of citations. Since the last FA nomination the article has passed GA and the amount of references has doubled while the body of the article has been substantially reduced.--Miyokan 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I see many of the same issues raised in the last FAC: readable prose size is still 66KB, it still relies heavily on Encyclopaedia Britannica, and citations are not fully and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). The citation level is improved, but one can still easily pick out uncited opinion (example: Others have acknowledged that despite its inertia and repression ...) There are many good candidate sections for better use of summary style to shorten the article (for example, Geography and climate and others). Also, see MOS:CAPS#All caps on reducing caps in citations, and see WP:OVERLINK about reducing links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers. External links might be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. There are also external website jumps within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have pruned the external links, reduced links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers, fixed the caps in citations, fixed that external website jump within the text. I am starting to replace the Britannica references I have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5. If more people think that the article needs to be reduced I will start doing that.--Miyokan 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well, it became much better, but many of the issues raised during the previous discussion are not addressed. BTW (a minor point), as for The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art, it is POV. They are often considered kitsch (for a good reason), played marginal role in the Russian art, and at any rate I have never heard of them as masterpieces. Something other would fit better, e.g. a picture of Kizhi, or if it shouldn’t represent architecture, something like early Soviet posters (they are likely to be PD).
  • Reply Perhaps they are not art but they are indeed the pinnacle of craftsmanship - According to author and Fabergé expert, Géza von Habsburg, "They are the absolute summit of craftsmanship. They are unbelievably made. They were the sort of apogee of what Fabergé was able to do, and he lavished everything he could on them."[1]. (I can also give you many examples where they are referred to as masterpieces- Fabergé Eggs: Masterpieces from Czarist Russia by Susanna Pfeffer[2] Each egg was a masterpiece.[3]"The discovery of this masterpiece is the most exciting of my 40-year career."[4]masterpiece creator Carl Faberge...[5] - perhaps the word "masterpiece" could be replaced with "the pinnacle of craftsmanship" if you prefer?--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of taiga is not really that of taiga, it is a grove of young larches near tree line.
  • Reply  Done Yes I agree, I have been trying to find a picture of real Russian taiga for quite a while now, but I will rename the caption to just its location.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF, with disastrous results, remove disastrous results at least. It is a blatant POV violation. The issue is complex (too complex for a summary-style article). After all, thanks to them Russia was rescued from the verge of starvation. Colchicum 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG, this is awful. The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime. The removal of price controls caused hyperinflation and people's savings were wiped out. Russia took up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution. Guys, this is a controversial issue. And at least hyperinflation was not caused by the removal of price controls, it merely became evident (well, even this is not entirely correct). The causal link between the policies and corruption is also far from obvious. even though -- kak plaksivaya baba, excuse me. POVish concatenation of facts. Colchicum 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • for far less than they were worth – this is meaningless at best. The value is not an inherent objective property. It emerges as parties exchange. It is impossible to sell something voluntarily for less than it is worth. Colchicum 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, only cons are presented concerning Yeltsin's era, only pros are there as to Putin's rule. This is POV. Corrpution and nepotism are still rampant, but for some reason the article is silent about it, while painting Yeltsin all black. It could be more even. Colchicum 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I think you misread. The article clearly says Corruption and nepotism has run rampant -ie present tense, not had run rampant. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat this statement again in the Putin era to save space. Indeed the article does not say that all these problems were fixed in the Putin era. If it still bothers you I could change it.
  • Corruption and nepotism has run rampant, including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline.- the including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline. - the second part could be removed to remove the 'anti-Yeltsin bias' if you wish so it simply reads Corruption and nepotism has run rampant Done--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a problem with the size of the article—Russia, after all, is huge, and there is only so much material that can be trimmed down without having to compromise article's quality. I do, however, have a problem with excessive number of Britannica quotations, as I do not believe that a feature-quality article should rely on summaries in tertiary sources at all. I also agree with SandyGeorgia on that there are still quite a few things that can and should be referenced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I added about 15 20 new references and removed unreferenced information. I am starting to replace the Britannica references I have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
I think one should review the references in order to make sure that the authors are non-partisan and that the issues are not controversial. Ideally, the article should summarize more specific articles. It is not always possible, because the latter are often in poor shape, but when there is some disagreement, the information shouldn't be included (it is technically impossible to represent all POVs in the summary-style article). I am still not entirely satisfied with the description of 1991-1993. Maybe it would benefit from contributions of other users.
Statements of the Russian government absolutely cannot be taken as non-partisan, yet now an address by Putin is used to substantiate that during Putin's presidency there have been improvements in the Russian standard of living. True as it may be, such sources are inappropriate. If something is sourced from the Constitution or other prescriptive documents (I mean the section on government and politics), it should be explicitely mentioned, because the reality doesn't necessarily correspond to legislation (cf. studies referred to in Judiciary of Russia). BTW, Russian transliterations (Federalnoye Sobraniye, Gosudarstvennaya Duma) are unnecessary here.
It is strange that the 1993 constitutional crisis and the referendum on the Constitution of Russia are not mentioned in the sections on the Russian Federation or on Government and politics.
I am worried that Russian Orthodoxy is confused with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is wrong. There are many other orthodox denominations in Russia. The Act of Canonical Communion is an event in the history of that specific church, I am not sure that it is significant enough for the general article.
nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions – Very dubious statement misrepresenting the source [6] As a general rule, ethnic groups united in their own statehoods live in compact groups within their respective republics, regions and autonomous areas (except for Jews and Evenks). And yet, 70.8% of the Mordovians, 68% of the Tatars, and 49.6% of the Maris live beyond the borders of their ethnic republics. I think it has too many exceptions and can safely be omitted.
Colchicum 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply  Done I removed the Putin address reference, made clear what was from the Constitution, mentioned the 1993 constitutional crisis in the Russian Federation section and mentioned the referendum on the Constitution in the Government and Politics section, removed the statement about the Act of Canonical Communion and removed the statement nearly all groups live compactly in their respective regions.--Miyokan 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, congratulations on writing an FA quality article on a very controversial topic. However, i have some things i'd like to see improved. First of all i find the Subdivisions section to be quite confusing. After reading it two times, i still have trouble understanding the subdivision structure of the Russian Federation. More specifically, I am confused about the differences between the different types of Federal subjects, and how the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is different from the other oblasts. Also, looking at the map it appears that some areas are governed directly by the Federal district government, and not by a Federal subject, is this correct? Reading the text didn't alleviate my confusion. Secondly, parts of the Culture, Sports and Imperial Russia sections appear to me like "walls of text"; dividing them into more paragraphs would, in my opinion, make reading them easier. Anyway, good luck on the FAC - I'm prepared to support it you respond to my suggestions. :) --Aqwis 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support! - Really an obvious example to a feature article. Reliable references, important information, images. An exellent article! Infact, it is so good that i was shure it's already a feature article. No Free Nickname Left 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment - As to the economy section, I would suggest to get rid of forecasts and expectations. They are useless. Noone has been able to produce accurate long-term predictions so far. Instead, some information on taxation would be really appropriate in this section. Colchicum 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Too unstable"? Looking at the edit history, this article is very stable. There aren't daily edit wars. In fact, there hasn't been an edit war for months. Also, vandalism is virtually non-existant on this article. And what "radical changes" are you referring to?--Miyokan 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not well-written; tons of MOS breaches. Tony (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) PS plus POV: for example, the section on religion has no mention of the ways in which the Russian Orthodox Church has had itself massively favoured over other denominations since the Soviet period. "in-depth educational system"! Even if it's the CIA Factbook that says it, I start to want more than a single source for sweeping attitudinal statements such as "is one of the best mass education systems in the world". "expenses on education took a big blow"—this is not formal English, BTW. It's all very fancrufty. Publicity brochure? Written by the Russian Ministry of Information? Same for this clanger: "Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy." Hmmmm. There are issues in every paragraph. Tony (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I removed the, "is one of the best mass education systems in the world", "Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy" and "expenses on education took a big blow" comments. I am surprised that someone has said that the article is not well written - Aqwis disagrees with you and says that the summaries are well written. The prevalence of the Russian Orthodox Church is already discussed through the statements which establish that the huge majority of Russians are part of that faith, and that "the church is widely respected by both believers and nonbelievers, who see it as a symbol of Russian heritage and culture". It goes without saying that the Russian Orthodox Church is favoured when "63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish".--Miyokan 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply  Done It was because the Soviet Russia section is the largest one. You are right in that it should not be divided if the others are not. I removed the divisions.--Miyokan 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak Oppose - The section of history need to summarise a bit first.Coloane —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great powerand is also considered to be an energy superpower. are you sure? the great depreciation of rouble; great cut in military part, relatively high rate of inflation after the breakup of the Soviet Union didn't make me believe it is/was a great power. Energy superpower? how about Brazil or S. Arabia? what do you mean exactly? can you quantify these figures compare to other oil-production countries? I think it is much better (i.e. NPOV) for you to depict Russia as one of the biggest suppliers of natural resources (e.g. crude oil / natural gas or whatsoever, actually it doesn't matter).
The part (sub-topics) of Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow should be merged. For general readers, who really cares the nitty-gritty and differences between these two. Look at the first sentense from the paragraph of sub-topic of Grand Duchy of Moscow: The most powerful successor state to Kievan Rus' was Moscow. It seems to me it is still talking about something from the above sub-topic, isn't it? Tsardom of Russia and Imperial Russia should be merged. The last paragraph from Imperial Russia should be moved to Soviet Russia, didn't it talked about the revolution and establisment of Soviet Russia? The history section needs to write a bit shorter. It's too long indeed!!!
For the health section, are traffic accidents, violent crimes catergorised as preventable diseases? do you think they are suitably putting under the category of preventable diseases? are you sure violent crimes were mostly induced by psychiatric causes? The primary causes of Russia's population decrease are a high death rate and low birth rate.(i.e. misleading) well, maybe! but who knows? tons of Russian every year were moved to the United States, Canada, the UK (mostly for wealthy Russian) and Australia for good, to name a few. Why didn't you mention them?
7 pieces of photos were forcibly put into the sub-topic of culture, don't you think it is too much? Coloane 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The history section fails NPOV really badly because of similar concerns to those that led to History of Russia losing its FA status. In the light of my experience on the previous article, I doubt whether it would be worth my time trying to make this article more neutral since most of the same problems are all present and correct here too (plus some new ones). Let's just take one example from the current article under discussion: "[Lenin] was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". Source? Lenin himself. But that fits with the general "nice Lenin, bad Stalin" tone of the page (a long-exploded myth). No Cheka, no War Communism, all the Bolsheviks' opponents are "anti-socialist monarchist and bourgeois forces" or foreigners (what happened to the Socialist Revolutionaries or the mass of Russian peasants who rebelled against Bolshevik control?). Another underlying canard: this article seems to follow the old Russian nationalist line that Moscow had a manifest destiny to "gather in the Russian lands". The bit about Georgia is laughably distorted (I'm not even sure why it's there in the first place). Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars begins in 1812 and so on and so on...There's also the same reliance on 19th century Russian sources which is really unacceptable. There's no way you could put this on the front page as an example of our best work. --Folantin 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Folantin 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(NB: Oh my God! I've just realised this has already received Good Article status! I never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this...) --Folantin 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I still oppose per criterion 1 (e). NPOV issues apparently unresolvable. This page, like most national histories (which tend to get delisted), is inherently unstable. Plus, it's badly written (e.g. the section about World War One and the 1917 Revolutions is particularly confused) and there seems to be a failure to understand criterion 4 ("summary style"). --Folantin 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, strongly. I share Tony's concerns, and also those of Folantin. The Chechnyan conflict, although briefly mentioned, is probably not given enough space, and events under Putin are presented in altogether too positive a light; yes, he's done well with the economy, but significant social problems remain (this is not really mentioned) and the issues of increasingly limited civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of speech that have been raised during Putin's presidency are brushed under the carpet; this topic has received significant commentary in recent times. Moreschi Talk 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I added information about criticism about Putin, and I added a counterbalance in the form of his strong domestic support and the world public opinion poll. I also added a sentence saying that significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health (plus the health problems are already detailed in the "Education and health" section and there was already a sentence, "corruption and nepotism has run rampant"). Deeper discussion of these topics should remain in the relevant articles as this is, after all, meant to be a summary article about Russia, and there is a lot of ground to cover.--Miyokan 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly Oppose-Dwarf Kirlston
Badly organized: beginning of Topography -not "The Russian Federation stretches across much of the north of the supercontinent of Eurasia. " but details on the two fathest points from each other still in Russia. Focus on "Foreign Relations" in on NATO and EU, when Foreign relations of Russia is much clearer and talks about relationships with ex-soviet countries. Furthermore attempts have been made to keep the TOC small, despite it not being that long as compared to the article - Education and Health are completely different topics in the article yet remain under one heading. Climate is part of the study of the earth and topic does not need to be called "Geography and climate". When I compare this English language GA Russia to the portuguese FA Rúsia the difference in formatting is shocking. Especially in Culture where six images are bunched up together in the English version and it is divided into sections in the portuguese.
History NPOV: the article would be better off in this respect as only about the Federation of Russia rather than about "Russia". No real mention of the effect of purges, of lowering population of Russia from the most populated european country, from 250 million, to 150 million. No real mention of recent economic history including the financial crisis of 1998. Why is Ivan IV and not the terrible and the great and not Ivan III?
Economy: "The average salary has increased to $540 (about $920 PPP) per month in August 2007, from $65 per month in August 1999, at the worst of the collapse" what was the average salary in 1994 before the financial crisis? What was the size of the economy at the end of the Soviet Era?
The articles it links to are many times in bad shape, to improve those would help the main Russia article.
I think Miyokan has been extremely diligent and hardworking in improving Russia.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued in my talk page -Dwarf Kirlston —Preceding comment was added at 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this a top level article summarizing literally tens of thousand articles. Many of them been quite controversial. There is always some trade off between the size of the article and the breadth of the illustrated topics, between size and the depth of explanation of controversies. I think the article is a good compromise between those trade-offs. I think lumping together realated topics like Health and Education is one of those trade-offs. Despite many topics been controversial the article is reasonably stable. I do not see a lot of sins against MOS but if they are identified they could be fixed. Alex Bakharev 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I thought about reading the article through to give decent review. But the first section is already so overwhelmed by peacock terms and obvious nationalism/patriotism that I don't even bother to continue reading. Like this one: Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering almost twice the total area of the next-largest country, Canada, and has enormous mineral and energy resources... I am not saying this is only occurence in intro. The article doesn't seem to be written from neutral point of view aswell. Suva Чего? 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Intro seems to be mostly cleaned up now. I need to check rest of the article as well for more constructive comments or vote change. Suva Чего? 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I have my doubts about some of the remarks up here, and I am afraid they are going to be fixed. Silly remark? Seriously, folks, too much history? --Paul Pieniezny 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid they're gonna be fixed? This article has had 250 edits since it's nomination - I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are. The fact is though that these are the ones found right now, in its current state. It's nomination was for it at it's current state, not for what it could be. If the necessary edits are not made during this nomination, it will not deserve FA status during this nomination.--Dwarf Kirlston 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I fail to see why this article is subject to a POV. Because it doesn't mention Georgia? Please... It highlights both facts that Russians can be proud of and facts that aren't so pleasant to the Russian people. For example, "significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health". Completely agree with Alex Bakharev. This article is very controversial and covers thousands of even more controversial topics (Chechen War, Cold War, Communism, Lenin, Stalin etc..), and it does a very good job of keeping it all in a neutral perspective. I've read over about half the article and I didn't notice any MoS gaps, which is probably because I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the language could actually go over the article instead of just "Opposing" the promotion and doing nothing about it. Miyokan has done a wonderful job bringing this article up to FAC status, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted.
PS, Just by reading his comments, it seems to me that Folantin just doesn't want this article in the FA category. (" never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this", " I doubt whether it would be worth my time..."). I honestly don't get what your problem is...Regards, Bogdan 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An FA article is an Outstanding, thorough article and a great source for encyclopedic information on which no further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Somehow It seems people have forgotten this.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Dwarf Kirlston said. Is this really an example of our best work? Of course, nasty old Folantin just wants to spoil everybody's fun...--Folantin 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is happening is that russian nationalism comes to the fore, and supporting this candidacy is akin to supporting Russia's current state, and objecting is akin to persecuting those who support Russia. It is further complicated by --Dwarf Kirlston
(You forgot to finish your sentence!) Yep. I have friends who are Russian (some of them might even define themselves as "nationalist") but they've studied history and they wouldn't put up with some of the things going on in this article. It's been a few years since I dealt with mainstream Russian history but I did read some pretty solid books on the subject. I can make a pretty good guess at what an expert's reaction this page would be. An editor who makes statements like "most peasants were pro-Bolshevik" doesn't inspire confidence. I get the impression most of the research for this article went no further than cobbling together a few encyclopaedia or newspaper articles found online. I'd expect more background reading to produce an FA candidate. Some editors - mostly Russians or Russophones - seem to be trying to hustle this article through to FA status as fast as possible rather than solving the underlying problems. --Folantin 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I did... only to remember now... I suppose I was going to say it's further complicated by the fact that people appropriate pages, and also consider it a personal affont to them if criticism is done to it.) the Great Purges according to my historical knowledge had killed at least 20 million people and possible way more - but that article notes at least 2 million and for the western reaction notes "minimization of the extent of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and small but passionate groups of modern-day Stalinists." -did revisionist scholars and stalinists edit great purge? --Dwarf Kirlston 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia has a revered and recognised tradition of ballet." - revered?
"The Russian language, renowned for its richness and flexibility" - renowned?
Left out in Foreign relations: relations with other ex-soviet countries
Left out in Culture: Architecture, crafts-making - it's not because there's not enough room, there's more information on the rather not very notable Russian cuisine than on Russian Ballet, Architecture, Crafts making put together, despite there being 3 pictures of famous russian architecture and one of the fabrege eggs, (which are not talked about at all). And there are strangely no images for cuisine and cinema, despite the plethora of images.
  • Reply I replaced the Bolshoi image with a 'cinema' image. There IS not enough room. We can't add all aspects of Russian culture, there has to be a compromise somewhere. (btw The Bolshoi and Winter Palace weren't meant to represent architecture - The Bolshoi Theatre image represents theatre and ballet, the Winter Palace represents cultural institutions) but (Sergei Eisenstein).--Miyokan 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too long, yet "Russian cuisine represents a bouquet" deserves a place? Russian culture#Cuisine is in all ways better in talking about cuisine
"While in the industrialised nations of the West, motion pictures had first been accepted as a form of cheap recreation and leisure for the working class" POV and bloat, the article can do without, should do without in order for succinctness yet it is there.
  • Yes, I am objecting because it is the first sentence on Russian Film in the article, it is not POV if in proper context, as introduction it is POV - to elaborate: one can start the article on France by saying "The French-men have lost many more wars than the Americans" even if the facts are true, it is POV. To say that "Russian Film was not produced as entertainment as in Western countries" is concise and remarkably more NPOV.--Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inexpensive by the way is not cheap I would further refer you to wiktionary:cheap. (cont.) cheap means: of bad quality, of little worth, and inexpensive. Is this article saying that cinema in the west was of bad quality and little worth? Or does it attempt to say that the tickets were inexpensive and isntead use an unencyclopedic term?--Dwarf Kirlston
It is too long because it is bloated. it doesn't treat these things not because there's not enough room, it's because notability and succinctness are ignored in general.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left out in Economy: Any discussion of the Soviet Economy or Financial Crisis. The article had been saying that 'Oil had been decreasing in importance in Russia economically since 2003' before this hour, it is still 80% of the exports, (the difference in the amount of imports and exports was what led to the collapse).
Left out in Demographics: Any discussion of the Deathtoll from Civil War, WWI, WWII, Purges and the effect on lowering population.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Demographics is not a history section, wars and such are left to the 'History' sction. Affecting of population numbers throughout history is never done in the Demographics section.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Bloat in Culture:Cuisine: "Traditional Russian cuisine is an important part of Russian national culture." as opposed to the unimportant architecture which is not even mentioned?

Its foundations were laid by the peasant food of the rural population in an often harsh climate, with a combination of plentiful fish, poultry, game, mushrooms, berries, and honey.Flavourful soups and stews centred on seasonal or storable produce, fish, and meats how is this notable? this does not belong in a Russia article, this is detail!
"Large areas covered by woods and forests were abundant in berries and mushrooms." maybe this belongs in geography?
Russian cuisine was renowned for diverse delicacies, especially refreshments (zakuski), made of fish, yielded by Russian rivers, lakes and seas.
"Soups and stews, made from the poultry and meats that were hunted," really? they were hunted? why that is interesting, perhaps both relevant to the fauna still existent, to hunting the sport, to endangered species perhaps... but is it really so notable and relevant to Russian culture that it is more important than one statement on Russian Architecture?
"Bread is a staple of Russian cuisine" I wouldn't be surprised, but it this notable?
"Russian cuisine represents a bouquet of many cultural traditions and influences that have been absorbed over many centuries." I didn't know that Russian Cuisine represented a bouquet. furthermore, it should stop at influences, even better at cultural traditions.
Furthermore the issue of the formatting of the images remain. Images are NOT next to their respective topics in Cuisine. They are isntead arranged at the top like this:
Image:St Basils Cathedral-500px.jpg|right|thumb|Saint Basil's Cathedral (1555–1561) is a showcase of medieval Russian architecture]]
Image:Ilya Efimovich Repin (1844-1930) - Portrait of Leo Tolstoy (1887).jpg|thumb|upright|left|Leo Tolstoy]]
Image:Peter Tschaikowski.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]]
Image:Coronation Egg.jpg|right|thumb|The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art]]
Image:MayaPlisetskaya.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Maya Plisetskaya in Swan Lake]]
Image:Sergei Eisenstein with skull.jpg|thumb|right|Sergei Eisenstein]]
Image:Winterpalast zwei seiten2.JPG|thumb|right|The Winter Palace, part of the Hermitage Museum]]
  • As a result of this comment the section on cuisine was entirely deleted. four photos were deleted.
--Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't as a result of your comment, the culture section needed trimming.--Miyokan 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean that the comment had any unreasonable effect, merely that it was reasonable, and that it had an effect, and this effect was, in short, the trimming. Or are you saying that you the editor that deleted it did not read my comment? I posted my comment on 15:58, 7 November 2007 and on 05:55, 8 November 2007 the section on cuisine was deleted. If the culture section needed trimming it needed trimming always, why was it only done after I posted the comment? It is my personal opinion that it was done because of my comment, I believe the facts point to this interpretation.--Dwarf Kirlston 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let me congratulate you guys first. The history section has improved considerably over the last days. I'd have few comments. The Dual Power: the soviets versus Russian Provisional Government and Alexander Kerensky after the February revolution are not mentioned, instead it reads ...Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called soviets. The statement is misleading, the fact is the first fully democratic elections in Russian history were held on November 12, 1917 as scheduled by the Provisional Government even though the communists had sieged the power by that time. The elected Russian Constituent Assembly was dissolved by the Bolshevik government after it became clear that the communists didn't win the elections. One might argue that the act fueled further the Russian Civil War. Also, the execution of the Romanov family on July 17, 1918 might be worth mentioning. One key factor seems to be also forgotten. The Soviet Land reform that redistributed the land between landless peasants that made them support the Communist government and helped the Communists to win the civil war. --Termer 07:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS.The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia...eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship sounds like a POV of a disappointed revolutionary I think. I'd avoid statements like that. Also, the "October revolution" itself might need something more neutral as the event has been called the bolshevik/communist Coup d'Etat of 1917 by many sources [8] that was in fact a counterrevolution to the democratic revolution in February.--Termer 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSN Encarta can and constaly is improved upon, and seem to have different policies in regards to tone. You linked to a rather long article and the backing you sought was at the very least not in the introduction. Could you clarify it's location?--Dwarf Kirlston 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second revolution led to the rise of the modern Communist movement and to the transformation of the Russian Empire into what became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia. However, the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship, which lasted until 1991.

was the editor copying directly? he should have put it in quotes, this is currently a direct copy of non-free copyrighted material on wikipedia
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality, the communist reality was bureaucratic dictatorship" is also true, but it doesn't seem to fit NPOV either.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is true? excuse me but this can only be an opinion of the editor who wrote the entrance into Encarta. The fact is , the political goal of the communists since Marx up to Lenin was the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that one was what turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship. Again, for some reason I don't see this fact mentioned in the article, instead it gives political commentary written as it appeared by an Encarta editor. I'd suggest to keep the article factual and avoid such opinionated commentaries in the text.--Termer 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is not what is written in the Encarta article, it's what Dwarf Kirlston said, I don't know why he put it in quotation marks.--Miyokan 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the only thing that matters here is what the article on WP says. And it still says The goal was...social equality and economic democracy in Russia etc. this is waht you'd call a judgemental statment meaning bias. an alternative biased statment would be: the goal of the October communist coup was to seize power by all means. The point is, once such opinionated statments are used, it should clearly at least say: accoding to who? Now, once such bias has been included into the article it should also list the opposing views. But currently the opinion reads like a fact and therefore it's not appropriate for a featured article on WP. That was the point.--Termer 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Dwarf Kirlston agree with Termer, I'm glad he understood my comment, I strive for clarity. -note: I have altered my signature slightly as you can see.--Keerllston 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Review Time?--I believe you "voted" already-- perhaps you thought it had been renominated after no consensus?
--I believe you are refering User:Miyokan, he has done a pretty good job: he has been persistent, hard working, and in this candidateship he has shown an ability to take some criticism and change things - all these qualities are great and beneficial to the working of wikipedia.
However:he informs on his userpage"This user is a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad.", and various pro greater russia opinions as well.
He seems to be political aka anti-NPOV-His actions are what you'd expect to some extent of a nationalist russian. To the extent that he goes against NPOV he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
KGB "troll" - troll refers to the type of communication with others. Whether there is actual dialogue or whether it revolves around debate of superficial points. Wikipedia is neither a bureocracy nor a battleground and therefore a troll is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia. To the extent that he is a troll he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
There is good and there is bad. He is not a troll, he is not political, he is not beneficial, he is not antagonistic. He's somewhere in between. Judging from this FAC I would say closer to beneficial.
--Keerllston 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgive any procedural error - I am new here) As I have proposed to Miyokan himself, I suggest the merger of the "Armed Forces" section into the "Government" section, as well as "Foreign Relations." Most of the FAs I've read here of different countries do not seem to emphasize such sections. I feel that both these sections contain information that is not pertinent to the general description of Russia. I think the "History" section can be reduced in the same way - merge and reduce the first three sections and focus instead on the Imperial, Soviet and modern eras, which is more pertinent to general Russian history. An example is at user:Miyokan/Sandbox (the size there has fallen from 115k to 98k). I also feel that multiple citations should be removed, for the sake of the size. K a r n a (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support K a r n a (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The article still needs work. It is currently overlinked, prose and sources need some improvement also. As an example of this problems here are some comments on the first subsection of the History section:

  • Why such a long title for the first subsection ("Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus'"), it seems to me "Ancient Russia" encompasses all the rest. Also the main articles linked at the top of this subsection are already linked in the text below. I don't see the point of having repeated links, specially as some of them are pretty specific.
  • In the first paragraph, second sentence, what does the word "steppes" refers to? To the Eurasian Steppe as a whole or only to the "vast lands of southern Russia" referred to in the preceding sentence?
  • In the same sentence, the clause "which would often move on to Europe" seems out of place and even redundant. Is it necessary?
  • In the third paragraph, the first sentence talks about Khazars and then, without further intro, the second sentence talks about Varangians. Some info is needed on why the Varangians are relevant to Russian history.
  • There's no mention on when and why the Slavs arrived to what is now Russian territory. That needs to be rectified.
  • The sentence "In the tenth to eleventh centuries this state of Kievan Rus became the largest in Europe and one of the most prosperous because of diversified trade with both Europe and Asia" looks like POV, it needs to be sourced. The following sentence about the Rus' decline could also use an inline citation.
  • The text does not say when did Russians as such appear. It just talks about "Russian principalities" without saying where did they come from.
  • The website http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml does not look like a serioues enough source for a featured article, specially if used to source controversial statements such as "About half of the Russian population died during the Mongol invasion". It should be replaced by more scholarly sources.

The whole article should be checked for this kind of problems. --Victor12 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked issues already dealt with. Here are some observations from this section:

  • The phrase "Prior to the first century" refers to the 1st century BCE or CE?
  • Why the link to Bosporan Kingdom as a main article at the start of the section? This entity is not mentioned in the text and it was not located in what is now Russian territory.
  • The section "Early East Slavs" is quite short (one paragraph), it would be better to merge it with the preceding one.
  • The reference to http://www.state.gov/t/pm/64851.htm in the statement of the Kievan Rus' as the most powerful state in Europe doesn't seem adequate to me. It is not an scholarly reference about Russian (or Ukranian) history, just an abstract from the CIA World Factbook. Could you replace it with a more scholarly source? For instance, a History book.
  • Still no explanation for the change from Slavic people to Russian people (Russian principalities are mentioned without any introduction). --Victor12 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. user:K a r n a has listed a number of missing issues which need to be rectified at the bottom of Miyokan's talk page. Brief mentions of things like the rich/poor gap and corruption, gangs etc would make this article much more balanced, and thus potentially FA worthy. Buckshot06 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The large number of "strongly oppose" comments and the quantity of the work thus proposed present an adequate challenge for any team of contributors. Many opposes have not been adressed. And it will take a long time - not within the scope of FAC in my opinion - to address the current opposes.
    My comments in particular, regarding the culture section's exessive trimming and lack of comprehensability, have not been adressed.
    --Keerllston 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russia/archive3&oldid=1085530200"