Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belarus/archive1

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Belarus edit

Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Europe, 9 November 2020

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article, unfortunately, does not currently meet the standards. There are many areas of unsourced content that have been flagged, as well as lack of use of high-quality RS, such as various embassies cited for info on foreign relations, rather than scholarly sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should add that, unfortunately, the organization and coherence of the article sometimes fall short of the FA criteria: see the Economy section for example. (t · c) buidhe 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luckily Zscout370 has indicated on my talk that he will try to fix up the article. [2] (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is an extreme example of an issue I often see on country pages, which is that the Culture section is more of a list of different vaguely related items rather than a high level coverage of culture as a whole. The lead of Culture of Belarus is not a bad example of what I'd expect a wp:summary style in this article to look like. CMD (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue when it comes to diplomacy is that, until recently with the 2020 elections in Belarus, it was more of a summary of what the relations are and focusing ninety percent on human rights or releasing of political prisoners instead of other nuts and bolts (IP, human trafficking, sport, etc). Also, as I indicated to Buidhe, much of this information was written years ago (minus the Covid situation) so there is link rot, more information included or even more available sources that are academic in nature. Yet, when it comes to a lot of parts from the FSU, sometimes the only information found is based from embassies or diplomatic notices and not journals. I am still having that problem now from just the quick glances. Other notes: culture was very hard to write initially. There was not a lot that I could tell that was Belarusian or just a Soviet-hand-me-down and I will need help figuring that out. As for the other suggestion of forking the etomology information to a new page, I like that idea. I remember that was a sticking point when it first went to FA, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it. I'm all ears. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Foreign relations section, I think it needs slight overhaul to make it more of a balanced summary. For example, the bilateral relationship between Belarus and the United States should not take up one third of a discussion on Belarus' foreign relations. There's roughly as much about the United States as there is about Russia and the EU combined! If it's not available in journals, or at the very least news, then it's probably too minor for this page.
    • On Culture, if it helps, it seems to be hard to write for everyone. Basically every country article has this issue. Your question over whether something is considered originally Belarusian is something that would be interesting to include in the text, and relates to similar issues I'd expect to see touched upon, such as the relationship with Russian culture and the tension (probably a better word out there) between this and the desire among some to express a more independent culture.
    • On forking, it's generally a reasonable idea, but I don't think it's a priority for this page which happily has not bloated that much. CMD (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I see what you are saying about the US-BY relations; I trimmed some parts of it so hopefully, it can show some balance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly publications on Belarus

Here is a list of what I could easily find on Google scholar and looks helpful to potentially cite in the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidhe (talk • contribs) 05:10, December 9, 2020 (UTC)

  • Marples, David (2013) [1999]. Belarus: A Denationalized Nation. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-41197-9.
  • Wilson, Andrew (2011). Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13435-3.
  • Sergi, Bruno S. (2019). Modeling Economic Growth in Contemporary Belarus. Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83867-695-7.
  • Ioffe, Grigoriĭ Viktorovich (2008). Understanding Belarus and how Western Foreign Policy Misses the Mark. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5558-7.
  • Savchenko, Andrew (2009). Belarus - A Perpetual Borderland. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-474-2794-0.
  • Frear, Matthew (2018). Belarus under Lukashenka: Adaptive Authoritarianism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-00841-3.
  • Lewis, Simon M. (2018). Belarus - Alternative Visions: Nation, Memory and Cosmopolitanism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-38775-0.

Some progress has been made, but there is a long ways to go here.

  • Please use the |trans-title= parameter on the citation templates to give the reader what the titles of the non-English sources are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe there has been some activity here; could you give an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been improvements, but multiple paragraphs without a citation, bare urls, I tried to check a source but found it failed verification. On some of the election and human rights stuff there is a false balance, i.e. "the Russian Federation and the CIS deemed the vote open and fair[10] while the OSCE and other organizations called the election unfair." So, without knowing much about geography articles, I'd say there's still a ways to go on this one. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. Moving to FARC does not preclude that improvements might still occur, but progress seems to be stalled here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

  • Issues cited include sourcing, datedness, and (possible) recentism Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, zero edits since moved to FARC. No indication that Buidhe's concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The only major change I'm seeing is another cleanup tag added[3] (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, lacking reliable references, slanted towards recent events, needing clarification and needing page numbers. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (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_review/Belarus/archive1&oldid=1000839320"