Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive2
- 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) 4:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [1].
Hungarian Revolution of 1956 edit
- Notified: Every project that is listed; all the original writers have long retired; diff for talk page notification from April 2021
Review section edit
The article has a fair few uncited comments, references to books without page numbers or really broad page ranges of 60+ pages. It also in many parts cites a UN Committee report. I don't think these can be used as UN reports are often loaded due to countries trying to make opposition countries look bad and the like Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There also appears to be some potential editorialising and SYTNH issues. Take for instance citation #5 which explains the schematics of "uprising" vs "revolution" by consulting few sources other than a dictionary. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think things like
Thus, a peaceful solution briefly seemed to be possible
are a bit WP:WEASEL. Strongly worded phrases like "crushing" the resistance are sourced using American sources, and seem a bit WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm a bit concerned based on some of hidden inline notes that appear in this article. There's notes like Does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph? A: (30 Oct 2009) the two references, paras 89 and 47, cover the last half of the paragraph. A citation on the ÁVH founding and the interior ministry is yet needed and Question: is this intended to be about the Community for Mutual Economic Assistance (that's a trade agreement) or the Warsaw Pact? As written no one will be able to find a citation and 30 Oct 2–9 - set this text "Austrian neutrality altered the calculus of cold war military planning as it geographically split the NATO Alliance from Geneva to Vienna, thus increasing Hungary's strategic importance to the Warsaw Pact." aside awaiting reference. Please reinstate text when the ref is found, this is an important part of the background of 56. There's also some stuff that's hidden that appears to be text removed to hidden notes because it lacked citations. The quoted notes above do not instill me with confidence about the sourcing here. Hog Farm Talk 01:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - editorializing issues, and it looks like from the interior notes that it's likely that the references don't support all the text. Hog Farm Talk 04:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, weasel words, lacking page numbers and citation maintenance. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per issues noted by DrKay. While I don't think the UN reports are completely unusable, I am concerned that several parts rely very heavily on a UN report almost contemporaneous with the revolution. It wouldn't hurt to have an academic source (rather than an international report possibly fraught with Cold War rivalries) for material such as "Later that evening, Kádár called upon "the faithful fighters of the true cause of socialism" to come out of hiding and take up arms; however, Hungarian support did not materialise, and the fighting did not take on the character of an internally-divisive civil war, but rather, in the words of a United Nations report, that of "a well-equipped foreign army crushing by overwhelming force a national movement and eliminating the Government"". Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist concerns about POV, editorializing, and verifiability have not been resolved during the FAR. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 17 September 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) 04:16, 18 September 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.