Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ukraine/archive1

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [1].

Ukraine edit

Nominator(s): Bogdan що?


The article has undergone a lot of changes between its GA and peers reviews, and I am now confident it is ready for FAC. If it, in any way does not meet the FA criteria, please don't hesitate to comment. Thanks, Bogdan що? 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't really taken a hard look at the article, and more critiquing may come later, but the first thing I noticed was the lack of non-breaking spaces (nbsp). Add them in the appropriate places per WP:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces. Calor (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some non-breaking spaces but I'm still a little puzzled, do instances of the following need the nbsp: 77 percent, 11 million and 11th century? --Bogdan що? 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of them do. So, for example, it would be 77&nbsp(semicolon)percent. Calor (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:MOSNUM, non-breaking spaces are needed "in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center". I take back what I said above, as I'm half right. So, insert nbsp's in places where the above clause would apply. Calor (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It seems to me that your initial instinct was correct, displacement of any of the above would be disruptive to the reader. Thanks, Bogdan що? 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few points relating to the lead:-

  • I think "Varangian-dominated" needs a hyphen
  • Third sentence is too long - should be split, either by a full stop or semicolon after "powers"
  • 2nd para: lose the "but" at the start of the last sentence
  • The following sentence is not logical: "Being the second largest country in Europe, Ukraine also possesses the second-largest military on the continent". These are two quite separate facts; Ukraine being the second-largest European country by area does not of itself lead to its possession of the second largest military force. The sentence needs re-writing
  • Delete "some" before the population figure
  • "77% of whom", not "them"
  • The link on Christianity is unhelpful. A better link would be to Eastern Orthodox Church.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for the quick suggestions. --Bogdan що? 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes the following sites reliable:
REF 100 (http://www.ukraine.com/culture/)
REF 101 (http://www.ukraine.com/culture/cuisine/)
The description of that site says its an Information and travel guide. That way I even have (http://www.ukraine.co.uk/), (http://ukraine.uazone.net/). Can we trust them? KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, when I received the same comment on the peer review, I initially thought that the ref was OK in the folklore context. But since more editors expressed concern, it has been replaced. Thanks, Bogdan що? 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, both "University of North Carolina" and "Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies" are reliable sources. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*REF119 (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2005/WPP2005%20web/Countries/Ukraine/demographic.xml) Gives a 404 Not Found Error. Some more deadlinks are,

Done, thanks for going through that. I fixed the three of the refs, and removed the ukrweekly one, it wasn't necessary. --Bogdan що? 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Still need to mention that Encyclopedia Britannica is a fee required site.

:Not done, how would I do that? --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in your citation template there is a field for it. Otherwise you'd note somewhere in the citation (I usually use a ()s after the publisher or title) that "fee required" or something similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Bogdan що? 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that using a tertiary general encyclopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta as a source for a general encyclopedia is a bit odd. And you're using them for very general subjects where you're going to be missing a lot of context, such as Eastern Orthodoxy or Communism.
I was very surprised when I first got this comment from you on the peer review. When referencing the article, I thought that encyclopedia citations where the last thing I had to worry about. They are reliable, verifiable and more importantly they're neutral English language sources; which are very hard to come by. Also, I removed the Eastern Orthodoxy ref but the Communism one is used to cite the aims of the Bolsheviks in the USSR during the 1920s, why is that missed the context? --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are still tertiary sources, i.e. just like Wikipedia. General encyclopedia's make good starting points for research, but shouldn't be used exclusively for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 26 (Vavrik, I .R. Terezin and Talerhof) is lacking a page number
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 43 ..."Lower, Wendy (2005) .." is a snippet from Goggle books. First, using a google books snippet is always iffy, because you're not getting the full context of the work if you're just searching for phrases on google books. Second, if you must use the work, you use it like a book, with the {{cite book}} template or something similar. You need to give page numbers, etc.
Done, I don't have a copy of the book so I replaced the reference. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What'd you replace it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ref 41) "Ukraine - World War II and its aftermath". Encyclopædia Britannica (fee required). Retrieved 2007-12-28.--Bogdan що? 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals (example, current ref 57 (Serrill, MIchael S. )
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 (Britannica "In all, some ...) has just a plain bare link in it as a reference, it should be formatted correctly.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 100 (Gorbachev, Mickahil...) has the same issue.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References in a non-English language should state the language they are in. An example is Current ref 106 ..
Done, it's an English language ref hosted by the National Ukrainian archives, I clarified it. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, and links checked out with the link checker tool. I was not able to check the reliablity of the non-English sources.
Just a note, I really have a concern with how MUCH of this article is sourced to general encyclopedia's such as Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta. It's a concern I've mentioned at FACs before, but a decent number of the references for this article are from such sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicAdam:

  • I would also like to echo Ealdgth's concerns over the use of encyclopedias in the article. Surely there are other references that can be used besides unauthored Encarta entries.
  • Overlinking may be an issue here. Common terms like "Russia" should only be linked once in the article (if at all). Sometimes, if it relates directly to a specific section something can be linked there as well, but other words like "legislature" and "industry" need not be linked (and certainly not more than once); English speakers (hopefully) know what those words mean already. There are other terms like "Serf" and "Serfdom", and "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and "Soviet Union" that both link to the same article and are linked despite being located right next to each other in the text...
Done, removed some links. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the autochecker, there are instances of inconsistent spelling using American or British spelling such as: armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme).
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, it mentions that the Kiev starting in the 9th century. However, under "Golden Age of Kiev", it mentions the start at around the 10th to 11th centuries. Am I missing something here?
Done, the Rus was formed around the 9th century, but reached its pinnacle in the 10th to 11th centuries, I clarified that. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is typically no need to cite information in the lead as long as it is also cited in the article (such as the size of Ukraine's military).
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire" seems to have issues on my computer with the text overlapping the image. I don't see any divs that would be causing such an error, so it must just be a problem with the number of images. You may want to consider removing some images or shifting their locations.
Done, it probably has something to do with your resolution, I removed the Russian Empire map. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the etymology section about "the Ukraine" vs. just "Ukraine", it may not be necessary to provide references to all those style guides. Finding one source, perhaps the country's official listing at the United Nations, etc. to show that the name is just "Ukraine", would be sufficient. The problem with using a whole series of references to justify a style issue is that I could possibly go out and find a number of other reliable sources that call the country "the Ukraine".
Not done, this was subjuct to a huge edit war, followed by a huge discussion at Talk:Ukraine/Archive03#"The" Ukraine; so I'd rather not touch that part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ref 32" should probably be a note instead of an actual reference, right?
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "populated by the Rus' people who formed the largest and most powerful European polity" That's quite a lofty claim that would need to be sourced as well as explained how "most powerful" is measured... economic, military, cultural, all?
Done, it's how the CIA puts it.[2] --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiev was totally destroyed in 1240.[18][17][19]" It would be helpful to order the references and insert them after the information they are meant to cite, as opposed to just grouped together at the end of a paragraph.
Done, some references were spread out. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances when links to detailed articles are just buried unnecessarily. For example, the phrase "heartland of Rus', including Kiev, fell" links to the article "Battle on the Irpen' River". That sentence could very well say, "In the mid-14th century, Galicia-Volhynia was subjugated by Casimir the Great of Poland, while the heartland of Rus', including Kiev, fell under the Gediminids of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the Battle on the Irpen' River." As opposed to leaving that information just oddly hidden.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing is thin throughout the "Foreign domination", "World War I and revolution", and "Interwar Soviet Ukraine" subsections. If information came from a single source, consider increasing the source density, especially directly after statistics are presented. It would be nice if the first paragraph of Foreign domination could even provide a single source for facts like "most of Ukraine's territory was controlled by the local as well as increasingly Ruthenized Lithuanian nobles as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" and "the Latinized versions of "Rus'", became widely applied to the land and its people, respectively."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources?: "the cossacks allied with the Commonwealth in military campaigns", "suppression of the Orthodox Church pushed the allegiances of Cossacks away from Poland."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source?: "which is one of the highest growth rates in Europe and the world."
Done, removed. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the information about the space industry located under the history section?
Done, moved to Economy. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is nothing mentioned about the West/East (i.e. ethnic Ukrainian/ethnic Russian) split in politics?
Not done, saying that Ukrainian voters are divided on ethnic lines is an oversimplification, bordering on falsehood. I'd rather stay away from such controversial statements as much as I can. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "The Ukrainian stock market recorded 130 percent growth in 2007, for second highest in the world."
Done, rephrased. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the annual growth of average salary income in real terms is about 20 percent for several years (2001–06) in a row." "several years in a row" is unnecessary since the dates are provided and definitely preferred over vague time frames.
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literary languages"? What?
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "Romanians and Moldavians are another significant minority in Ukraine, concentrated mainly in the Chernivtsi, Odessa, Zakarpattia and Vinnytsia oblasts. Gagauzians are another minority, concentrated mainly in Budjak."
Done, removed that meaningless and unsourced part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "Jews played a very important role in Ukrainian cultural life, especially in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Today Yiddish, the Ukrainian Jews' traditional language, is only used by a small number of older people."
Done, removed that meaningless and unsourced part. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 12th grade, students take the Government Tests or school-leaving exams. The Government tests act as both school-leaving exams and university admission tests." Huh? Is it just me or do those two sentences contradict each other?
Done, fixed. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: (Transportation) "it is considered to be by European standards, of low quality."
Done, --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article needs to be edited further to make sure any outstanding MoS issues are taken care of (non-breaking spaces, number and percentage formatting, etc.) and to upgrade the quality of the prose in certain sections. The article is definitely "good" but not quite up to FA standards yet. -epicAdam (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is too long because the history section is too long. Most of the material should be in History of Ukraine, if not already there, and not duplicated here. Likewise, the intro section is too long and is mostly history. That should be replaced by one paragraph capturing just the highlights. Other interesting things should then be added to the intro section. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to make the exact same comment as Hmains. The history section (at 3,300 words) is too long: over a third of the entire article (8,400 words). Renata (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in the rewritting of the article, it was agreed ([3]) that a longer than usual history section would benifit the reader since to western audiences the country is relatively new. The article is still under the 100kb limit and to me, it covers everything that need to be covered. --Bogdan що? 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whatever 'agreement' existed is not relevant here. The history section and history in the intro are too long for a country article. This extensive and good history needs to be in History of Ukraine or its sub-articles, not here. Indicating that other articles have problems that need to be fixed is no excuse for allowing problems to exist in this article, which is what is under discussion here. Hmains (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I was not the one that pointed at other country articles, miss Calliopejen1 was. And secondly, how does one determine the desired length of any section, if not by agreement, or consensus? --Bogdan що? 21:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support :

Following the 'list':

1.

  • a) The article is well written, and was easy to read. Obvious that a lot of time was spent developing it.
  • b) Article shows great amounts of information. History of Ukraine is developed from early ages to modern.
  • c) Factually accurate. Heavily sourced and checked.
  • d) Writer obviously showed neutrality. One of the hot issues in current society is the 2004 Election. Personally I was worried about possible bias on that issue alone. To my pleasant surprise, there was none. Accurate and neutral.
  • e) The article has not sustained heavy moderation. From what I've seen for the past week no major issues with 'editing wars' have been recorded. (This point I guess is weak in my analysis considering I have not been monitoring it 24/07, but the article seems stable. Making it meet the criteria)

2.

  • a) Despite introduction being somewhat lengthy I personally do not see an issue with it. In fact I believe it makes it better. As the criteria states it "summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". Article definitely did that.
  • b) Contents are short, precise and to the point. I see no issue there.
  • c) Refer to 1c.

3. Images are all cited and sourced. They relate perfectly to the article, meeting the criteria.

4. Article is quite long in general, but compared to most featured articles I believe this is as good as it gets.

I wish good luck to the editing 'staff' of this article, and hope it receives the nomination. --Altair Metamorf (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Special:Contributions/Altair Metamorf. --Bogdan що? 07:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First and only edits so far by Altair Metamorf (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite these being my first edits, I was part of Wikipedia 'community' for over 3 years now, watching many articles being demoted, promoted, etc (most importantly I saw reasons behind actions). I have created this account only because I was interested in expressing my feelings about this article and possibly many more in the future. --Altair Metamorf (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending major changes I think this article is not balanced in its coverage. The history section is far too long, and geography gets only three tiny paragraphs (omitting discussion of its ecology/biota and any current environmental issues). The section on the military is longer than that on the government. Why does literature get four paragraphs while art and music get zero? Religion is covered in far too much detail for an introductory article. I would advise looking over other featured country articles and seeing how they are structured. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What patterns do you see in other featured country articles? Germany has several sections that are unique to it alone like philosophy, Development aid and Media while writing two sentences on music (a lot can be said about German music) and nothing on art. Japan has next to nothing under culture while including a section on Maglev trains. Israel's military section is bigger than its economy section, and the article is 122kb in size. Then there are other countries like Belarus and India(!) that don't have a word on topics from Infrastructure to Education. --Bogdan що? 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unfortunately, even with the changes, I don't think the article has gone through enough editing to be reach FA status. To the nominator's credit, while the comments I made above have mostly been fixed, those types of issues should have been worked out in peer review. I am also still dissatisfied with the questionable use of encyclopedic sources like Encarta, an issue that was not addressed. I noticed that the article didn't receive many reviews in PR; however, primary editors also have to be proactive in seeking out assessments from other reviewers, especially those that may have an interest in that subject area. For example, no editors from WikiProject Ukraine provided comments on the peer review even though this is probably the single most important article in the whole WikiProject.

A more-extensive peer review may have found a way to cut down on the article's length and level of detail, especially in the history section. WP:Summary isn't just a guideline, it's part of the FA criteria. The prose has to be engaging, and while the history of Ukraine is indeed fascinating, I think that readers quickly lose interest in the topic. As a guideline, the history section should consist of about 10 standard paragraphs. It might help to create a list of the top 10 events that shaped the history of Ukraine and then provide a paragraph of well-sourced detail about each of those events. Anything extra should be in the supporting "History of Ukraine" article. Again, 10 paragraphs is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it's often a good starting point to try and determine what really is important when telling the story of Ukraine.

As for what subsections should be included, of course not every country is going to focus on the same items. However, if items are important enough to be mentioned in the lead, then they ought to be mentioned in the article. Currently, all three topics (architecture, literature, and music) received top billing in the lead, yet only literature is discussed in any detail. Further, the prose just does not have the level of sophistication that readers would expect from an FA quality article. Phrases like "The unification that Ukraine achieved for the first time in its history was a decisive event in the history of the nation" and "the most valuable prize in their quest for power" do not have a professional tone.

The sourcing in areas is still spotty. Places where I'd expect a citation (for dates and statistics, etc.), especially for sentences at the end of paragraphs, are left hanging. The article also provides grandiose claims like "people that remained in the occupied territory either passively or actively opposed the Nazis", which are not only missing citations but are near-impossible to verify. After some heavy editing and another extensive peer review the article may be able to achieve FA. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is it that determines the desired length of any section? FA class country articles are very inconsistent, while you say 10 paragraphs in history and WP:COUNTRIES says 4 to 6. And for that matter, why does a longer than usual history section make the article worse? --Bogdan що? 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten paragraphs is only a suggestion; some countries have more, some less. More to the point, making sure the article is an appropriate length is part of the FA criteria. A longer than usual history section doesn't necessarily make an article worse, but if there is too much detail readers tend to lose attention, which violates the first FA criteria about "engaging" prose. -epicAdam (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Don't see any reason why it does not fit Featured Article criteria. --Boguslav (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and referenced, an interesting read. Dincher (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice that the dates are inconsistently autoformatted. I could remove the formatting of the dates, if you allow, with a script approved by User:Tony1, or you could go through and make sure the dates are autoformatted consistently per WP:MOSNUM. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ukraine/archive1&oldid=1138474704"