Talk:Igor Mangushev/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Early life

• "As an adult, Mangushev was a Russian nationalist who founded the organisation Svetlaya Rus (Russian: Светлая Русь) in late 2009." Reads a bit odd, consider rewriting slightly. Perhaps "Mangushev grew up to become a Russian nationalist, founding the organisation Svetlaya Rus (Russian: Светлая Русь) in late 2009."

I've made that change. CT55555(talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• There's a couple sentences in this first paragraph that are about the membership of Svetlaya Rus, but aren't clearly about Igor Mangushev himself. Consider trimming and moving relevant text to the Svetlaya Rus article, in order to maintain focus.

Agree. Have made that change. CT55555(talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "militarising patriotic groups" What does this mean? Does it mean patriotic groups that were in the process of militarisation?

• Source uses the term "военно-патриотических организаций", so I see how this was arrived at, although maybe "militant patriotic groups", "patriotic military groups" or something similar would be better?

Thanks. An improvement. I've done that. CT55555(talk) 17:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [6] The term "patriotic movements" is used here, but the source says "patriotic clubs"

Since the edit above, that sentence is no longer in the article. So I consider this now resolved. CT55555(talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "That year, the group provided military training at a gathering [...]" Was Mangushev at this event? If not, consider trimming slightly.

The source is silent on his presence. However, he founded the org that same year, so it seems reasonable to link it to him. So I'm gently pushing back here, but this is very much less than any hill that I'll die on. CT55555(talk) 17:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think it could be better utilised on the article about the E.N.O.T. Corp. itself. I think the context of "founded to coordinate Russia's nascent militarised patriotic movement." is worth keeping, but still think the info about the training camp could be moved over to the other article. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Done. CT55555(talk) 12:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Military career and mercenary work

• There is a massive time gap between his activities during the 2014 war in Donbas and the 2022 invasion. This needs to be filled, as that's quite a few years where he's unaccounted for in the article.

Very much to my own surprise (I had previously searched extensively) I found a sketchy Russian wiki that I cannot link to here, but which itself linked to that history. I had to discount some sources as I considered them unreliable, but was able to add some history in that missing period. CT55555(talk) 18:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work there! I had a look at the sources and am happy to see they're broadly reliable. I will note that you've misspelled "Bangui" as "Bangii", so it's currently linking to a city in Indonesia, rather than the Central African capital. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Have now fixed Bangui. CT55555(talk) 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Consider rearranging information to account for chronology. Like having it talk about his role in the 2022 invasion and then jumping back to his activities during the 2019 election is a bit jarring.

Good point. Have addressed. CT55555(talk) 19:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "and critic [...]" Consider starting a new sentence here.

I broke that sentence up, but at a different point. I think that flows better. I hope you will support. CT55555(talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Although I'd merge it together with the above paragraph, as they're both rather short paragraphs about the invasion. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Done CT55555(talk) 13:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Any reason why the access details in citation 23 are in Portuguese? This citation could be tidied up a bit to be honest.

The reason is just an error in how I used Wikipedia library. I've fixed it. I'm not great at citation formatting, trying to learn and get better. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. CT55555(talk) 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok no worries. Ideally this would have a direct link to the source in question, but I understand that's not always available. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• "comedy routine" I know that's probably what he called it, but is it really appropriate for us to call it that in Wikivoice?

• Spotcheck: Source doesn't appear to describe it as a "comedy routine". So aye, this needs to be changed...

Eeek. I've changed that. Thanks. CT55555(talk) 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Any reason why Azovstal is in scare quotes here?

It seems clearly an error, so have removed them. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Citation [1] is the only one that uses an in-line quote, but that quote doesn't actually help verify the text it's cited to here: that he took the skull because a friend's wife wanted it. Consider either removing the in-line quote, or using a different quote for this instance.

I just deleted the quote marks. Is that what you wanted? Or you want me to remove the words too? CT55555(talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry. I may not have explained myself clearly. In the military career section you quote Mangushev's wife as saying "one friend's wife wanted a skull of a Ukrainian very much". This is cited to Sochnev 2023, which includes a translated quote within the citation: "We had him cremated. [...]" But this quote within the citation doesn't verify the quote about his friend's wife wanting a Ukrainian skull (nor does it verify the bit in the lead about wanting to see Kyiv burn), so I was asking if you could either remove the quote from within the citation or replace it with quotes that do verify what it's cited to. As none of the other citations include quotes from the sources, I would recommend removing the field marked "|quote= [...]" from the citation format. Did I explain that better? Apologies if I haven't. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand now. The quote about wanting a skull was from another source and I've changed the citation. Citation 1 earlier cites his wife saying he wanted to see Kyiv burn, so I think that's properly cited. In summary, I think I've fixed it all now. CT55555(talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah fabulous, thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

• Some of the sources that are in non-English languages ([11]; [14]) aren't provided with language tags. Please tag these properly for accessibility.

I'm wondering if we're working from different versions. In the current version, both are English language and one was tagged. CT55555(talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. Earlier edits removed references. Have added the tags to the correct references. Sorry for the confusion. CT55555(talk) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Couple cases of iffy prose, but nothing major.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Do another pass to make sure all the citations are properly filled-out.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Couple minor cases where the text says something that the source doesn't, noted above. No clear cases of OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No obvious cases of plagiarism or copyright violations.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's quite a large biographical hole between 2014 and 2022. Sources should at least be gone over to make sure this article isn't missing anything. Biographical hole has been filled, nice work.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Couple cases in the "Early life" section where it loses focus and over-contextualises about an organisation he founded. Consider trimming these to maintain focus. Unnecessary detail has been moved to relevant articles.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   For the most part, it is relatively neutrally-worded. Surprisingly so, considering the subject matter. But there's a few cases of non-neutral wording that need to be dealt with, noted above. Non-neutral wording has been dealt with.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable since it was extended-protected in February 2023.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image of Mangushev is properly utilised under fair use. Image of Prigozhin is licensed under creative commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are properly captioned and contain very will-written alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Holding for now, as there are some issues that I think need to be dealt with before this article can be passed, particularly to do with its coverage. Once these have been seen to, I can take another look at the article and reassess. @CT55555: Nice work on this so far, ping me when you feel like you've adequately addressed the above points. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Thanks for the helpful review and improvement suggestions. I have addressed all feedback above, including expanded the career gap. There remains a possibility that my citations are imperfect, I'm not very good at them, but welcome any critique. CT55555(talk) 19:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely! I've responded to your points that I think need further attention, but it's only a couple. No worries about the imperfect citations, I understand they're tricky to get the hang of. With your permission, I may tighten up some of the citations before passing this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for the clear direction and collaborative spirit and willingness to give me a chance to fix issues. I think I've fixed everything. I very much welcome any citation fixes you wish to do. CT55555(talk) 13:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I think all the issues have been dealt with now, so I'm more than happy to pass this. Congratulations to you and to your collaborators on this well-written article! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk very much did heavy lifting on this article too. Thanks for the review. CT55555(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.