Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zscout, I'll be glad to take this review. I just posted a note about this one at WT:GAN that this article appears to have be delisted by an IP acting on her own accord, not by our usual process (see [1]). So I'm going to give it a quick look and probably a quick pass later today, though if I see any remaining issues we can discuss them. Thanks for nominating this one, and for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, I do see at least two issues here to work on:

• The lead should be expanded a bit per WP:LEAD; for such a major figure, a one-paragraph lead is a bit thin.
• The word "claim" should be revised in most or all instances per WP:WTA. I note that it's particularly used for arguments by Lukashenko and his supporters, which is problematic. "Stating" or "arguing" or other words would be better in most/all of these occurrences.

Once you've addressed these, I'll do a close readthrough of the text. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I will rework on it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to the lead. I think the expansion looks good, but I'll look at this again after I've gone through the rest of the article in detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Readthrough points

All points from initial readthrough addressed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article appears comprehensive in scope, and from what I've read about Lukashenko myself, gives an accurate picture of his rule. On a first pass, though, it appears to me need attention at a few points for neutrality, sourcing, and clarity. I realize these may involve substantial work, but Lukashenko is an important and controversial figure, and I want to make doubly sure this article is up to standards. I've listed these points in more detail below. Thanks for all your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "Under Lukashenko's rule, the government's conduct has been globally denounced for being out of line with international law and for alleged human rights violations." -- this sentence is a little strong for the sources that support it. "Globally" seems like an overstatement, given that most criticism comes from the US, EU, and NGOs, so you might make this more specific. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Other countries have come out against Lukashenko besides those areas, so I changed it to "Western" since that is where most of the governments are chiming in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "He and other Belarusian officials are also the subject of sanctions imposed by the European Union for human rights violations" -- are these sanctions still current? it would be helpful to add "as of 2006" here or similar language. EU Sanctions began in 2006, but lifted in 2008 and re-added in 2011. US sanctions have been in place since 2006. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "The charges were never fully proven against Shushkevich, who had become increasingly unpopular among the conservative parliamentary majority, yet they served as a pretext for his downfall." -- I'm not sure the sourcing here is strong enough to support this statement. It takes a strong position, but one source is a newsletter of a Ukrainian-American NGO, and the other is a dead link to another NGO (though a research institute). Is it possible to source this to a media article, or a scholarly book? This book, for example, doesn't appear to describe the corruption charges as clearly unfounded (though it leaves the question open). [2] Removed dead cites, reworded the statement and added two new sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) That rewrite looks much better--thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "defeat[ing] the mafia." -- this quotation needs a source--it doesn't appear to be from the book cited several sentences later. Done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I added a citation with the exact language of that quotation--take a look and doublecheck me to make sure this source is okay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) It looks great. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) *"with the latter regarded as the clear favourite" -- add a citation Done User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "By most accounts, the new constitution turned his presidency into a legal dictatorship." -- this definitely needs a citation, and probably a rephrasing. Everything I've read about Lukashenko in the past agrees with this, but we'll need a source that clearly says that "most" people feel this way. Otherwise, perhaps use a phrasing like "Some historians" or "some NGOs" or "the US and EU" or whatever fits the sources best. I went ahead and removed this state, as you have said with others, since it is almost like repeating a fact on repeat like a broken record. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "The United States and European Union" -- consider abbreviating these to US and EU throughout. Considered and acted upon. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a 1997 report on Belarus" -- this isn't ideal for a source, and also not detailed enough of a citation to be verifiable. A new source should be found for the preceding sentences. This was removed as a source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "During his fourth term, he still blamed the west (mostly America and the EU) through their organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for extending the goal-line when it comes to Belarusian goals." -- this sentence doesn't appear to be fully supported by the given source-- can a clearer source be found, or this rephrased? It's also a little confusing to have this under the section "first term". What I was meaning was that if Belarus completed these tasks for loan eligibility, the US would change the requirements to either sell more industries to private owners or devaluation their currency by a bigger amount (changing the goal posts, as what is used). What I did was I took this statement out and kept the source and put the source in the economy. I think I put the post there to show a pattern of Lukashenko railing against the Western powers for trying to undermine Belarus for one reason or another. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC) *"Following the Iraq war of 2003, United States intelligence agencies issued a report that announced aides of Saddam Hussein managed to acquire Belarusian passports while in Syria. The same report mentioned that it was unlikely that Belarus would offer a safe haven for Saddam and his two sons" -- this is also out of place in "first term"; in addition, the Iraq war went well beyond 2003. (Perhaps say "US Invasion of Iraq"?) I changed the link to say 2003 invasion of Iraq. I also changed this and the bottom question to the second term. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC) *"As of 2004, the EU and Belarus share a border over 1000 kilometers in length with the accession of Poland, Latvia and Lithuania." -- lots of jumping around in time here. I would suggest that the material on his presidency be re-ordered either by subject or by chronology, but not to mix the two approaches. I am shooting for chronology. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "Gerard Stoudmann of the ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) of the OSCE that there was "no evidence of manipulation or fraud"" -- this sentence appears to contradict the previous one--the OSCE said the election was unfair, but their suboffice approved it? More clarification would be helpful here. That statement is false. This says the elections were flawed, his team were denied visas and says a lot of observers and challenges were either blocked or denied entry to the country. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC) *"ahead of the presidential elections" -- another small moment where we move unexpectedly through time; I would suggest rewriting to first mention Russian support before the election, and then mention the congratulations after. Done User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Don't forget to revise uses of the word "claim" in the article per WP:WTA, a GA criterion. Done User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Looks good. I found one more hiding down in "Domestic" and replaced it with argue. Is that rephrasing ok with you?[3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "The election was predicted at the time by the UK Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague with an opinion that "Mr. Lukashenko orchestrated illegitimate and undemocratic parliamentary elections to extend his power and control over the people"." -- This sentence is a little unclear; unfortunately, I can't get into the original article without a subscription to help rephrase. Would it be a fair rephrasing to say, "UK Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague predicted a Lukashenko victory, stating, "Lukashenko [already] orchestrated illegitimate and undemocratic parliamentary elections to extend his power and control over the people"? I wonder if the best solution is simply to cut this sentence; we already have plenty of sources noting the Western outrage at Lukashenko's elections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC) " vowed to crush unrest in the event of large-scale protests" -- "vowed to crush" seems a little non-neutral. How about "banned large-scale protests"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I changed it to "prevent large scale protests". User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *" Indonesiakatakami.wordpress.com" -- currently n67-- doesn't seem likely to be a reliable source, and we shouldn't use another govt. minister as the main source for this claim either (at least not without attributing it in text). Can another source be found for this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I have found the original article here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) " while fellow CIS countries did send officials not higher than ambassadors." -- this phrase confused me. Does this mean they sent ambassadors? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Some sent ambassadors, some sent lower officials, but no head of state showed up either from those areas. I reworded to say the CIS neighbors sent either ambassadors or lower-ranked officials. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "During a televised address to the nation on 7 September 2004, Lukashenko announced plans for a referendum" -- the discussion of this refendum seems a little out of place in the "Domestic Policy" section. It's not really a domestic policy per se, and up until now these referenda were discussed in the article chronologically. I'd suggest moving it up in the article to the "second term" section. Moved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "In addition, throughout the years of Lukashenko's rule, the average salary in Belarus is much lower than that of any neighboring country." -- citation needed That is a false statement, see here for the data. Salary is higher than the Ukraine and on parity with Russia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC) " In response to a question about Belarus's domestic policies, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela said "We see here a model social state like the one we are beginning to create." -- Coming in the middle of a paragraph, this is a bit of a nonsequitur. Perhaps praise from other governments could be separated into a new paragraph. I did so and moved it to the foreign policy section of the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) <ref>devaluation</ref> -- something's gone wrong with this ref. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Just pasted the wrong thing. This is the source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "For a time it was pegged to major foreign currencies, such as the Euro, US Dollar and the Russian ruble in order to maintain the stability of the Belarusian ruble.[96] Yet, the currency has experienced free fall and also several rounds of devaluation." -- all this appears at first glance to need citation. I'm not strong on economics, though, so if the subsequent reference says this thing in a way I don't understand, you'll have to spell it out for me. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I found a reference at [4]. What a currency peg means that a country would pin (or peg) the value of their currency against a foreign currency in order to make the value of their own currency not fluctuate in a very bad way. It is almost like a fixed exchange rate (similar to what Argentina had with the US dollar). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "The last major devaluation" -- avoid phrasings that could go out of date per WP:REALTIME. Maybe this could just be "A major devaluation took place in 2011..." -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "It is not known where the term was first used, though the earliest documented use was in 1998. The use was in the context of opening a museum to memorialize victims of Communism with a wing dedicated to Lukashism." -- This appears to be original research; the citation seems to go to a story on the museum opening using Lukashism, rather than a source discussing the history of the term itself. " The term has been used mostly by groups who oppose Lukashenko, such as Zubr." -- this also appears to be original research (or at least uncited), though I suppose it would be fair to reword as, "The opposition group Zubr has used the term" based on that source. "a coalition of opposition groups supported by the US and Europe" -- "supported by" makes it sound like these groups are indeed the pawns of foreign powers. Can secondary sources be found for the 2004 Belarus democracy act? Under the US Law, the government can prop up parties and groups. The 2011 re-authorization also gives the US government this power explicitly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "Lukashenko continues" -- use an "as of" here to avoid this going out of date; "As of [date], Lukashenko continued..." "We will wring their necks, as one might a duck"." -- this quotation appears twice in the article "Europe's last dictator" -- this should be more clearly sourced in the "Foreign policy" section--does the book cited a sentence later contain this quotation? "However, in a shift of policy in October 2008, the EU decided temporarily to lift visa sanctions, mainly to help persuade Belarus not to recognize the independence of Georgian breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which had been unilaterally recognized by Russia two months previous" -- I would suggest either moving this so it appears chronologically, or gathering all the travel ban info in one place; it's a bit confusing to have it scattered like this. *"and are due to expire at the end of 2009" -- needs updating Removed since a travel ban was again installed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *"On 16 September 2009, Lukashenko entered the EU for the second time since the temporary suspension of sanctions, to visit a Belarusian trade fair in Vilnius, Lithuania" -- this seems trivial enough to cut (the first time, the Vatican, seems worth keeping.) Removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *"Since the EU adopted this policy of ‘change through engagement’, it has supported the provision of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and reforms to help stabilize the Belarusian economy." -- the given source doesn't appear to mention IMF loans or "change through engagement"-- can a second source be found? I changed the statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *" Supporters of the policy of ‘change through engagement’ put forward a range of arguments ... " I think perhaps this paragraph should be cut. First, it's based on a single opinion column in a specialist publication (or at least that's the only source given). Second, it's giving a lot of weight to arguments in favor of a policy of the EU in dealing with AL, instead of AL dealing with others, which should be the focus here (it also omits arguments against this policy). What do you think? I'd still be amenable to some form of it staying if you feel it's important, particularly if additional sources can be found. Removed; I think there is an article about Belarus-US relations and it best fits there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *"Recently," -- use a date per WP:REALTIME Done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) This isn't an action point, but I just wanted to say again, thanks so much for doing all this work on this one! I know it must be disappointing that we both hoped this would be a quick-pass, and instead some substantial revision needs to be done. You've been great about it, though, and I particularly appreciate the speed with which you've been working. Between the two of us, I think we ought to be able to knock this one into shape before too long. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I have been a student of Belarusian politics since 2000 so my goal was to help build an article about AL that not only applied within our policies, but also gave the English audience something to wonder about. If you look hard enough, there is a Flickr photo by me on the Commons with his photo and a Belarusian flag on a desk in my home. The way I see his rule and also his leadership is a way I could see and experience the Soviet Union that I wasn't able to. I am a political science major and the Soviet Union was my area of study for years and Belarus just fits perfectly. Also the way he did the national symbols is something that I am seeing copied all over not just the former SU but in other countries. (Symbols are my first passion). I am not worried about the quick pass or anything. If you seen how long it took me to get the main article (Belarus) as Featured (I think it took me about 3 to 4 years) or other articles (such as the Flag of Japan), I put in work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC) *"In fact, two Belarus newspapers—Nasha Niva (Our Wheatfield) and Narodnaia Volia (People's Will)—were shut down in 2006, after ignoring several warnings, for publishing allegedly anti-Semitic and racist articles." -- this appears to be WP:SYNTH, unless that book was published late enough in the year to address the October 2007 comments; do we have any sources that directly connect these two events (the Israel comment, the newspapers shutting down)? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Realizing what was used as the source, I removed it outright. The source was a sham. See Talk:Alexander_Lukashenko#Stewart_Parker. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "Before the polling he said" -- before what polling? The BBC source didn't say, removed that line. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Should the redlink to Gross National Index instead point to Gross national income? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) After I saw the explaination by the World Bank, I changed the link. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough

Looking good! I think that took care of any major issues in the article. Since we've done a fair amount of rearranging and rewriting in the course of this discussion, I want to give this one a second top-to-bottom copyedit today or tomorrow, and again I'll note any points I can't easily fix myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know there are still some dead links that I will try and fix and also just format some things around. I also may want to update the photo of Lukashenko from the kremlin.ru website from something very recent. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Dead links aren't a GA criterion, so don't worry that you need to get them all to pass this review, but still a good thing to fix for the long-run. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "These policies led Western governments to take a tougher position against Lukashenko" -- It's not clear here what "these policies" refers to. If Belarus was unlikely to offer Saddam asylum, why would the US be angry? Perhaps cut this sentence and rewrite the next to start something like "During Lukashenko's second term, the US government protested..."
  • Redone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• " Despite that, the crowd of demonstrators rallying after the election was the biggest the opposition had mustered in years, with nightly protests and demonstrations in Minsk. The turnout at the biggest protest on election night was about 10,000 according to Associated Press reporters' estimates." -- this language is almost word-for-word from a source someone added [5]-- please rewrite this so it's paraphrased.
  • Done. I think it was added by an IP a long time ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it had that dumped-in by an IP feel. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "One opposition candidate and poet Uladzimir Niaklajeu (Vladimir Neklyaev), sustained a head injury during this beating and was abducted from intensive care by the Belarusian authorities" -- this still needs a reliable secondary source-- the current source doesn't mention the head injury, and is only sourced to a British politician.
  • I could not find one, so I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Lukashenko provoked diplomatic rebuke from Germany[119] and much controversy when he insulted the openly gay" -- the "much controversy" part doesn't appear to have a citation. More importantly, though, I'm not sure that it's needed; the fact that it provoked a rebuke from another government is probably mention enough.
  • Removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Though never confirmed officially," -- The Guardian story states that Lukashenko confirmed Nikolai's parentage, so this statement may need to be updated.
  • I changed it to "never confirmed by the government". User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "There is no mention of Galina in the biography of Alexander Lukashenko published on the official presidential website" -- this doesn't appear to be in the source. Can a secondary source be found noting this absence as an important detail? Otherwise, it seems like a small bit of original research, and should probably be cut.
  • The official biography (in Russian) is here and there is no mention of the family. Ditto with the English version. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure this is true; I'm just not sure it's worth mentioning in the article if no secondary source emphasizes the fact. To put this another way, we could just as easily write that his official biography doesn't mention that he insulted a gay German minister, praised Hitler, or jailed political opponents. But this isn't a big deal either way--happy to leave this one up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • I saw your point, so removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's it for the second readthrough. I'll start the checklist in a moment.

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'd suggest moving the picture of Lukashenko and Putin to the foreign policy section just to spread the pictures out a bit more. That's not necessary for this review, though, just a suggestion.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--terrific work.