Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russia/archive4

< 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Russia

edit
previous FAC
Check external links

I have made many changes since the previous FAC (Properly formatted all the references. History section has been reduced. Rewrote the lead. Added various discussions of controversial issues that has gotten Russia in the press in the last few years (arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, raising the gas price to ex-Soviet neighbours). Added the challenges still facing the Russian economy) to the point that I believe the article now meets all of the FAC criteria.--Miyokan (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, since history is my primary interest, I must congratulate you guys. It has made a lot of progress and reads well compared to the last time when it had multiple problems. Nice work! There is one thing I noticed. Perhaps it's me that I've missed something but did the the Bolsheviks really introduce the right to... free housing? At least that's what it says right now in the article. Please consider backing the free housing part up with a published source. Otherwise I'd simply remove the "right to free housing" part from the sentence. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housing was 'free' in the sense that the government constructed housing and distributed it to people for an almost non-existent rent. I am not sure what year free housing was introduced, but you can see it in Article 44 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution - Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing. This right is ensured by the development and upkeep of state and socially-owned housing; by assistance for co-operative and individual house building; by fair distribution, under public control, of the housing that becomes available through fulfilment of the programme of building well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services. Citizens of the USSR shall take good care of the housing allocated to them. However, I removed it because it is too complicated an issue to cover in one sentence. --Miyokan (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "right to housing" makes sense, not "right to free housing". So please feel free to add the fact to the article. As long as it says "right to housing" instead of "right to free housing", it's factual.--Termer (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Miyokan (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objections/Issues
really minor:"Starting 2005 Russia started steadily increasing the price it sold heavily [decreasing] subsidized[izing] gas to ex-Soviet republics." - grammar - russia starts increasing the price it sold gas [at] to republics?
major: Culture section is not comprehensive (I previously made a suggestion that it start - "Russian Culture is ____")
PS: I see some improvements.
--Kiyarrllston 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section has already been extensively reduced through numerous copyedits and a lot of it lies in the references. Other users have commented that any further reduction would compromise its quality. --Miyokan (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large body of reference or not, the article is more than a handful. I'm sure both "History" and "Economics" has gone through plenty of editing, it could still be summarized further. Quality is not synonymous with an excess of detail and large amounts of text. The article has sub-articles for almost every single section and sub-section, so I don't see the merit of keeping the main article at over 100k (and a whopping 60ks of prose).
Peter Isotalo 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject deserves that size (compare the US for example). BTW, 36th reference needs fixing. --Brand спойт 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed--Miyokan (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have some kind of compromise here? "Economics" in particular seems very preoccupied with details of economic history of the 90s for example. The importance of a words or footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the economic history and politicized issues to Politics of Russia and Economy of Russia articles.--Miyokan (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I didn't know this article was a FAC until I read the talk page. I think it is superb. I went to the talk page to comment on the high quality of the article and ask for something to be done about this:

It is also applied as a means of coding and storage of universal knowledge—60–70% of all world information is published in English and Russian languages Russian also is a necessary accessory of world communications systems (broadcasts, air- and space communication, etc). Which needs a little attention. Well done, great article.--GrahamColmTalk 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clumsy and difficult to understand. I would delete it. I offer: Russian is an important world language and 60 to 70% of all literature is in English or Russian. --GrahamColmTalk 10:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Miyokan (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. This article is nicely done, well written, and referenced. But, I have one objection: I agree with Brandmeister above about the ambiguity of the infobox.. It currently states that "Russia" (or Rossiya) as we know it, was founded in 862 AD. This misleads the reader into thinking that the "Russian (Rossiyskaya) state" was founded in 862. If you would make it more clear as to what was founded in 862 (Kievan Rus - not "Russia") then you will get my support. —dima/talk/ 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This article has been consistently altered to remove text, seemingly where it paints a negative view of the country. I have tried repeatedly to get some reasonable discussion of Gazprom's role in energy diplomacy, the constriction of democracy within the country, constraints on free media, and conscription difficulties, including Dedovschina, including yet user:Miyokan without exception removes the material. These are always justified on the basis that it's 'too long' 'too detailed' 'no other country has this' etc but the continual theme is a removal of any negative commentary. While sounding biased, this article, in my view at the moment, resembles more a whitewash than an encyclopaedia article and should not be promoted. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - problems cited by user:K a r n a and mostly remaining unaddressed include: (quote from user:Miyokan's talk page): I don't have the links at the precise moment (and mind you, there definitely are), but in reply to your questions: (1) Housing - how working families in cities like Moscow live in one-room apartments with poor water/electricity supplies, dingy conditions. Most rural areas don't have access not only to benefits of recent growth, but to good amenities, government facilities, resources - rural Russia needs more discussion. (2) The actual poverty rate, where is it prevalent, rich-poor gap. (2) State monopolies - the removal of Khodorkovsky and concentration of state power in media and such industries raised concerns about free-markets, etc. Gazprom's cutting off supplies to Ukraine, using its wealth to provide cradle-to-grave services, influence in politics. (3) Population shrinkage is well covered, so I withdraw that point. (4) Crime and corruption - I remember an article on the clean-up of St. Petersburg before the 300th anniversary summit, which spoke lengths about corruption and crime in bureaucracy, mobs, etc. St. Petersburg was like the most disorderly city until the date. While this article is exhaustively informative, I think the economy section can use such a balance, by keeping the budget/foreign investment data (which takes a 1.5 paras) shorter. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand from my discussions with Buckshot, he is convinced that Russia is a dictatorship and that it uses its energy as a political weapon. Accusations of Gazprom using its energy as a political weapon is discussed. So are the accusations of a rollback of democracy. But then you have to present the other side if you want to make a NPOV/balanced article (eg "While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia." and "The arrest of prominent oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on charges of fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion was met with accusations from the West that the arrest was political. However the move was met positively by the Russian public and has undeterred investment from the country, which continues to grow at double digit rates.")
Russia's problems are all discussed (read the article) and in a balanced manner, nothing is whitewashed, including raising the price to ex-Soviet neighbours, the arrest of Khodorkovsky, growth of crime and mobs in the wake of the post-Soviet collapse, challenges still facing the economy, Asian Russia lags behind economically, health problems are thoroughly covered. Your continual additions to the military section about conscription took up half of the entire military section, so I edited it to simply say "conscription is being reduced because of numerous problems associated with the practice". Also, conscription is being reduced not only because of Dedovschina, but due to demographic difficulties, the move towards a better trained and modernized military, etc.--Miyokan (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment To solve the issue and get a good compromise, I'd keep politics entirely out of the article. "Russia's problems" and everything that might have been "met positively by the Russian public" don't need to be a part of a featured article about Russia I think. By keeping it strictly factual and by removing anything that could be interpreted as even slightly biased or as commentary or as an interpretation, should make also the people happier here who think the article is too long. First of all, remove/rephrase all Although-s, However-s according to WP:AVOID. Few things that read as commentaries or as interpretations that could be also rephrased or removed:
a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences; a Varangian named Rurik was elected ruler (konung or knyaz) of Novgorod around the year 860; Kievan Rus became...most prosperous in Europe; Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called Soviets; confederation of counter-revolutionary forces known as the White movement; the Soviet Union established the Warsaw Pact alliance and; President Boris Yeltsin illegally dissolved the country's legislature; C separatists declared independence in the early 1990s; While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia. etc.
The last would be a good example of the "Russias problems" and "met positively" thing that doesn't need to be there in my opinion. Good luck!--Termer (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've only looked at the images, but there are major problems with many copyright issues. I nominated every image in the Soviet Russia section in an appropriate problem image page, as well as the ballerina picture. Several are clearly nonfree and several more need more information on the original photographer or publication. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it's quite a stretch to suggest images that are in PD Russia have major problems with copyright. The most absurd is to claim that the image of Lenin taken in 1920 has no evidence that this is pre-1923, could plausibly be from 1923 or 1924. It seems Calliopejen1 is not aware of the fact that after suffering from 3 stokes the guy on the image was lying in his deathbed from March 1923 on. etc.--Termer (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – in my opinion the history section is too long and should be reduced to one paragraph per period, instead of one subsection per period – Ilse@ 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This article has much to recommend it, but isn't an FA yet. Entire paragraphs throughout the article are uncited (for example, the last 2 paras in the 'Soviet Russia' section) and there does seem to be a rather positive spin placed on the sections which discuss modern Russia. For instance, the paras on the military correctly state that Russia has lots of military equipment, but the fact that much of this equipment is obsolete by modern standards and the military is of generally low effectiveness (though this is improving) isn't mentioned. Similarly, the demographics section has a rather dramatic graph showing the declining Russian population but this is buried in the article's text. Moreover, I'm worried about the way some sources have been used - the Economist Intelligence Unit's classification of Russia's level of democracy is basically a fail (it's well into the 3rd of the 4 levels) and places the country in pretty disreputable company (eg, it ranks behind single-party states such as Singapore, military dictatorships such as Thailand and Fiji and even ranks behind Liberia) yet the article highlights the EIU classifying it has having "some form of democratic government" rather than the more accurate interpretation that Russia has a limited democracy and 101 countries were assessed as being more democratic that it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further reading I'm more convinced that this article is not FA yet. The only discussion of the errosion of Russia's democracy under Putin is "While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia." This sentance is missleading (western governments have protested against political repression and bullying, not 'reforms') and seems to deny the existance of any significant domestic discontent to Putin's rule. Not suprisingly, it's not cited. Similary, a claim that the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky "was met positively by the Russian public and has undeterred investment from the country" is highly questionable (did all the Russian public really approve of this? were no investors at all detered?) and isn't cited. This article definetly isn't a FA. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do have to agree with Nick Dowling, that this does appear to be designed to remove alot of the controversial points and over inflate others. It seems a little bizzare there is no mention of its deteriorating relations with the EU, it is promoted as being part of the reason behind the Kosovo conflict resolution, when it was incredibly agressive in trying to scupper the NATO attempts at land operations. It makes no mention of the seizure or forced selling of foreign energy reserve to state producers that I can see...it barely mentions Chechnya, thugh perhaps that is best. Narson (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If politics has been removed from the article, then IMO that moves a long way to clearing up alot of the problems. I havn't checked the article out yet so I won't change my 'vote' yet. Narson (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Oppose There is some some pretty dodgy language in there about Russia, for example, has played a major role in resolving international conflicts by participating in the Quartet on the Middle East, the Six-party talks with North Korea, and promoting the resolution of the Kosovo conflict and nuclear proliferation issues which is total and utter drivvle. For a start none of those conflicts are yet resolved and I am quite certain I can find sources hostile to Russia's actions in relation to Kosovo. This was just one glaring piece of pomp dsicovered in a quick glance. No, I think this article is pretty close to achieving FAC, but at over 100kb and with so much pro-russian peacocking, it is not quite there yet. Narson (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand your problem with this, it is purely factual - Russia is part of these organizations, and it is fine to say 'resolving' because the specific aim of all of these organizations is to seek a resolution to these conflicts, regardless of whether you think that Russia is hindering progress or not.--Miyokan (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed it from past tense- "and has played a major role in resolving..." - to present tense - "and plays a major role in resolving international conflicts by participating in".--Miyokan (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It is a shame that some editors are trying to politicize this article. This is an article on the country, and politics is only one of many aspects. There is a "politics" section for a reason, and all the political controversies (democracy criticism, raising the price to ex-Soviet states, arrest of Khodorkovsky) should either go there or to the Politics of Russia article IMO.--Miyokan (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment like I suggested above, keep the politics entirely out of the article and nobody is going to be able to pick on the issue. As a reader, it's enough for me if a featured article about Russia just cites the facts only, like "Putin is the president of the Russian Federation". Any political commentary added to it is going to tricker another round of pro and anti statements attached to it. Its an ouroboros circle, you'll never get out of it unless you decide to drop all political issues that can be read as commentary. Keeping the politics in Politics of Russia sounds like a good idea to me.--Termer (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No one is suggesting that the article should have a particular focus on current Russian politics - the concern is that the article is biased towards the current Russian government. WP:NPOV makes it pretty clear that omissions of key topics and common and credible viewpoints are a form of bias. As there's been a lot of international comment over the apparent failure of the democratisation movement in Russia this needs to be (briefly) included in the article - it's not enough to just name who the government is without also mentioning the serious concerns which are very frequently raised over how they gained power and how they govern. More seriously, most parts of the article which touch on the performance of the current government (eg, the discussions of foreign and military policy, the education system and economic management) are written in glowing terms and criticisms of the government are attributed only to foreigners (very little - nothing? - is attributed to the domestic political opposition). In addition, I have a feeling that the topics covered have been cherry-picked to put Russia in the best light - as some examples, why is the only international educational test specifically mentioned one Russia topped? (Russia's results were significantly below the OECD average in the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment) Why does the economy section focus on the impressive growth in energy production and exports and the benefits which have arisen from this but not mention the high rate of inflation which has also been associated with the energy sector's boom? As a result, I don't think that the that the article is neutral or comprehensive at present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I don't agree with the opinion that daily politics such as mentioning the serious concerns which are very frequently raised...has to be included in the article. At the same time also the performance of the current government written in glowing terms as political commentary should be simply removed. A good example to follow would be USA#Government_and_politics, it's strictly factual, nobody is analyzing the issues of the daily politics in there, even though "the serious concerns" and "the glowing performance" are a part of the daily political life in the US like in any other country including Russia.--Termer (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • United States isn't a FA so it might not be a good guide to use. More to the point, there simply isn't widespread criticism of the US's form of government (which I'm aware of), so there's no reason to mention it in that article. This isn't the case for Russia. No-one is suggesting that day-to-day political disputes be included - rather, it is being suggested that the article needs to better cover the common criticisms of the structure of Russia's government (eg, how the government gains power and governs rather than whatever its policies are). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Nick, it is clearly written, While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia. This clearly mentions that the government has received criticism. Putin has something like the highest approval rating of any leader in the world - domestically, largely the Russian public support him. FA country articles with governments that enjoy far less support, like Australia and Germany, do not mention anything of the domestic criticism their governments receive. Also, your claim about the foreign relations section written in some kind of 'glowing terms' is completely unsubstantiated. The "foreign relations" section merely states the facts; which organizations Russia is part of and which international conflicts it is part of. It completely states the facts. Just because you think that Russia is obstructing a resolution to the Kosovo conflict does not mean Russia is not, as the article says, actively involved in promoting a resolution of the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, the article says nothing about the performance of the current government at all. The economy section states the facts in a neutral tone, it does not say anything about the governments performance in economic management.--Miyokan (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See my comments above - most topics which the government has influence over are written about in glowing terms and I think that this constitutes a form of bias. Something like 30% of the population voted against Putin's party in the recent (and aparantly semi-rigged) elections and this suggests that there's an opposition, so why is no mention made of it? Incidently, I have no opinion on the Kosovo conflict and don't recall ever going near an article on that topic - why are you claiming that I do? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Miyokan, adding such a commentary like you cited first generally criticized by Western nations...has won him widespread popularity in Russia, and claiming that Putin has something like the highest approval rating of any leader in the world is a very bad idea. Since according to the Russian opposition leader Kasparov it would be relying on the polling results in a police state.--Termer (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Termer, not even western world leaders or media subscribe to Kasparov's idea that the popularity polls are rigged.--Miyokan (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment That's your opinion. Once the Russian elections (that in essence ware the major popularity poll) were rigged according to the Western sources, [1] [2] it can be easily claimed: why should the other popularity polls be any different. The thing that the western world leaders might not mention it is a part of the politics. I don't wish to get into it any deeper, hope you can work it out with Nick Dowling or simply drop the politics from the article. --Termer (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment Done I moved the politicized issues to the Politics of Russia article. This was needed as no FA country articles have politicized issues in their text, and it will prevent conflicts.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't see how removing all mention of these important issues does anything for the article's balance or comprehensiveness (or how adding slanted text to other articles helps these articles either). These are important issues which need to be covered the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So what exactly would you suggest Nick Dowling? Should the article mention that Putin has been on the cover of Time as the most influential person of the year and at the same time he has been compared to Hitler? Also like other leaders of the world have been labeled nowadays if you know what I mean. I just can't see how the controversial subject such as Russian politics could be spelled out in a balanced manner since there are only extreme opinions around. Therefore I'd just drop it. But in case you have a more clear idea how to spell it out so that it would read like WP:NPOV, please hlep the guys out here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small comment. At the bottom where the nav templates are located, there is a blank space between "Countries bordering the Black Sea" and "Countries bordering the Caspian Sea". Could you fix it? CG (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Article doesn't seem to address any negative aspects of Russia including human rights, population, education, and standard of living. Countries with nearly identical Human Development Index's such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Algeria have much more balance neg vs. pos.Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? How can you compare the Russian education system to that of any of those countries? Brazil - 88.6% literacy, Algeria - 69.9%, Mexico - 91%, Saudi Arabia - 78.8%! That noted, none of those countries (except one sentence in Brazil) speak of any kind of "negative aspects" of education. Read it, it is all merely statistical. Now, population decline on the other hand, is a serious problem, and therefore is covered very well in the article. But, I just can't understand what you might possibly mean when you say "human rights". And again your examples don't have one word on human rights, with the exception of course, of Saudi Arabia. But then again, I'm pretty sure women in Russia aren't banned from driving. Bogdan що? 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly
    • From the section of Geography: The continental interiors are the driest areas - [vague] which part of interiors of Russia you are talking about?
    • "104 kilobytes long, appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." The section of history is pretty long. Again, this article is simply the introduction of Russia. Smaller size is strongly recommended esp in this section.
    • From the section of Foreign relations and military: As one of the largest entity of economy, Russia tried to negotiate with other members from WTO since 1993 and now the process is still going on. What was/is the exact problem? for what time Russia will be expected to join WTO? this section didn't mention any. Putin tried several times to discuss the problem of granting the privilege of visa free/visa on arrival for Russian nationals with the EU but finally failed. This section didn't mention it. Arm sale "specifically" (including the figures of volume) for China (biggest buyer) didn't mention. How about the join military exercise in Central Asia (SCO)? the territorial dispute with Japan in the Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands is also completely missed. This section is quite pro-Western view that the relation with the US and the EU or NATO is over-emphasis.
    • From the section of Economy: Gini index is relatively high, this section didn't mention the gap between rich and poor and also, why there are many billionares living in the city of Moscow and at the same time, most Russian people over there are still living in a poor condition (i.e. salary less than US$900.00 per month). Of course the economic growth is quite impressive, however the starting point is quite low. World Bank (2007) rates Russia as Upper-middle-income economies along with Argentina, Libya or South Africa, why didn't you mention? the info of foreign investment only shows how much money they put in Russia, it didn't show which sector of business mainly from FDI? do you mean banks? insurance companies? or any other private enterprises that you knew? flat tax is quite attractive indeed, however, why didn't you mention the monetary control? is it 100% free to bring money out from Russia through airport without declaration and confiscation by customs? how about if one would like to wire money out via any bank in Moscow without filling unnecesary forms and paying expensive service charge over the counter because of this policy (i.e. monetary control)?? Finally (but not least), Moody's Investors Service which performs financial research and analysis on Russia. It address the possibility that a financial obligation will not be honored as promised. Moody rated Russia as Baa2; it means Russia considered as medium-grade and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. [3] BTW, this part is not written in neutral point of view 100% for sure.
    • From the section of Education: this section didn't mention any performance of Russian students in general like reading, science, maths and problem solving. From the evaulation of PISA in 2007, the performance of Russian students are basically not satisfactory (actually it is very poor) at all aspects. It actually makes this statement like As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is generally of a high order appear doubtful indeed.
    • From the section of health: A graph/table is much better than thousand words here. Why didn't you do that? how about medical insurance? if it is univeral accessible for all Russian citizens, is it effective?
    • From the section of language: the "vague" tag didn't fix. With many and many people in Eastern Europe (not including those who are Russian in Russia) would like to learn German or English rather than Russian, actually the influence of Russian language is declining. Why didn't you mention?
    • From the section of culture: Citation tag didn't fix. I think Pushkin is the most famous one in Russia. Why didn't you mention his novels or poem? why there is no famous novelist or poet before 19th century that I can find out from here? well, there are many many problems as well from this article.
    • From the section of sports: From this statement: During the Soviet era the national team placed first in the total number of medals won at 14 of its 18 appearances;[163] with these performances, the USSR was the dominant Olympic power of its era.[164] It is not pretty fair to depict in this way as USSR was composed of not only Russia but also many other republics like Estonia SSR, Latvia SSR or others that they also made a lot of contribution on the medal list. It was not Russia herself performed as an Olympic power during the Soviet era. To sum up, this article is not written in neutral point of view indeed. Coloane (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References are not in FA standard & MoS breach: No. 111, 119, 160 etc!!
  • Comment, the "Soviet Russia" subsection of the "History" section reads as a history of the USSR not of Russia in Soviet times. I don't think this is appropriate, this article should focus on Russia, not on the whole USSR. Thus, for instance, famines in the 1930s affected primarily Ukraine and (to a lesser extent) Central Asia whereas Russia was mostly spared. This subsection needs to be rewritten with the proper focus. --Victor12 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the "Culture" section, Literature has just one (small) paragraph whereas Sports has a whole subsection with three paragraphs. That seems like undue weight. Sports could easily be reduced to just one paragraph and merged into "Culture". --Victor12 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree
hmmm... Ukraine was considered part of "Russia" for a long time (wasn't it?) -it was part of the "Rus", also traces it's past back to East Slavs.
The term Soviet Russia (see Soviet Russia (disambiguation)) is commonly (informally) used to refer to the USSR
I re-iterate, the Culture section needs re-hashing and expansion
--Kiyarrllston 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Soviet Russia refers to the Russian SFSR, as Soviet Russia (disambiguation) says, and is sometimes incorrectly interpreted to mean the whole Soviet Union. The article makes it clear that it is referring to Russia because the content starts from the beginning of Bolshevist rule in 1917, before the Soviet Union was formed in 1922. Also, with regards to discussing Russia's role in the Soviet Union-Russia's history then is essentially the history of the Soviet Union - There is a reason that the USSR was often referred to as "Russia" and its people as "Russians.". The article makes clear the the preeminant role Russia played in the Soviet Union (made up more than half of the population, 75% of the land, more than half of the economic production, dominated political sphere). Combine this with the fact that Russia is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union.
Ukraine was considered part of "Russia" for a long time (wasn't it?) -it was part of the "Rus", also traces it's past back to East Slavs. - How is this relevant to this article?
No one else has expressed problems with the structure of the culture section and I do not understand your penchant for inserting strange structures to content (eg you tried to format the Russia talk page by topic instead of chronologically, you wanted to make some kind of 'Society' section that no other country article has, etc). We can't include all aspects of Russian culture, this IMO is a summary of the major ones.--Miyokan (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Structure? My main problem with the culture section is comprehensibility, not structure.--Kiyarrllston 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you (Miyokan) aware of the article named Culture of Russia? I find it strange that there are two different articles, Russian Culture and Culture of Russia, that would presumably treat the same subject. I hope that the FA version of the Culture section is a summary of one of these.--Kiyarrllston 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second article, Culture of Russia, is an OR-ish text based on hypotheses that there exists a hybrid Culture of Russia that joints Russian culture and the cultures of smaller ethnoses like Tatars, Bashkirs, Ingushs, Russian Germans, etc. That is somehow similar to the hypotheses of existence of a hybrid Soviet Culture. While a neutral and referenced article on the hypotheses and its implication will be interesting, the current article is neither. I do not think those materials are summarized in the Russia article, nor that they should be Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing both articles are way more comprehensive - which has little to do with length. Cuisine, architecture, are significant parts of russian culture. They are not even mentioned.
I do believe that the Culture section should be comprehensive, does anybody disagree with this?
--Kiyarrllston 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question to ask is does anybody agree with this.--Miyokan (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is everybody agrees, because comprehensibility is required as part of FA criteria - I request summary style in Culture section in order to have greater comprehensibility and small size.--Kiyarrllston 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, assuming everybody agrees with you is not an argument. As far as I can tell no one has expressed your concern with the culture section and 6 people have voted support so they must have thought the culture section was fine. When the culture was longer, there were far more complaints saying it was too long than there is now at its current length.--Miyokan (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just let this article remain the same without any change. Russian people need self-esteem as they mostly get barely enough money to feed their mouths. That is why the size of history, culture never reduce because of this reason. I'm just sympathetic to your situation. I never feel angry for what you did for me. But I feel quite perplexed is why did you always attack the American articles? didn't you get the visa refusal from the US embassy in Moscow? if so, you can try again! Coloane (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I exposed his lying on another issue, User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[4] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[5]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [6] [7] [8]. User:Coloane is currently reported on the Administrator's noticeboard for ongoing harassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetry [9]--Miyokan (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, I just don't care what you above mentioned. That is always happened in Wiki. Take your time. :) Coloane (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coloane does not seem a very constructive editor [judging from the evidence Miyokan provided]. Let me state that I, Dwarf Kirlston, have no interest in blocking the Russia article from becoming FA except to improve it. I hope you don't judge me by my past actions.--Kiyarrllston 07:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who objected to the size of culture (I believe I referred to it as "bloat in culture") - what I am currently saying is basically "Do not increase the size of culture while increasing comprehensibility" - do you believe this is impossible? - When I opposed the size of the cuisine section I believe I told you that I did not want the deletion of it, but rather a more summary style version than the one then in place - I hope we can co-operate and learn from each other. Thanks for reading this comment.--Kiyarrllston 07:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"does not seem a very constructive editor"? I wrote down many reasons which are of highly details. However, all points from above were basically disregarded. I have no interest in blocking this article from becoming FA, believe me or not. Conversely, what Miyokan did is revenge. Mostly Russian people behave like this. Coloane (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate taking the topic of "reverge" out of this conversation and focusing on constructive judgement of this article and whether it deserves FA status, and what improvements (if any) are needed.--Kiyarrllston 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC) - I don't think Miyokan seems a very constructive editor either, in attitude - but the "revenge" thing you two have going on is both of your faults.[reply]
  • Comment - Reduce the size of "History"!!! will you? it is too big!!! Please refer to the article of India and look at its history. The small section of history covers anything more than 5,000 years in a brief and clear style. You just found an excuse and stubbornly kept the huge size of history in this article and make sure all readers here to go over all details of Russian history. Well, that's not very good!!!!!!! Coloane (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think India would be a very good example, this article is much more thorough. It goes in-depth on topics like Health, Infrastructure, Education, etc. When the Indian page, does not even goes as far as mentioning them. Why can't the same go for history? Bogdan що? 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it's still worth looking into because India is a featured article. I personally don't mind History being as long as it is since it's my favorite subject. But once getting the article into featured status takes basically making everybody happy with it, going against the will of your customers here is not helping to bring it to the desired status. So I would still consider everything what's said in here and make adjustments even though the task making everybody happy about it at the same time might sound like a mission impossible.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose
This article is technically quite good but suffers from quite serious POV problems and is for this reason not close to being of featured article quality. To take one example, there is a very strong positive spin on economic growth with very imbalanced attention given to current economic problems. There is no comparison to nearby countries' growth for a sense of context (e.g.'s Ukraine's higher growth). Additionally, while I agree that extended discussion of politics is not appropriate, to avoid mentioning the extremely strong centralization and consolidation of power by the executive branch during the recent past would be a grave ommission and a flagrant NPOV problem.
I think that Miyokan, despite many demonstrations of good faith, tends to produce content with a seriously problematic slant that takes many revisions to get right, and that while this discussion has produced useful progress, the overall result is still not objective. I know that you are deeply committed to this article, but unfortunately it is not yet of truly encyclopedic quality. I hope it does get there eventually. --Wilanthule (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Wilanthule expresses my earlier concerns very well. This article has severe POV difficulties and is not of featured quality. (This comment has been re-inserted, after it was earlier deleted by user:Miyokan - I am sorry if this a appears to be 'voting twice', and thus have changed the title to 'Comment'. I strongly resent the deletion of FAC comments this way, and it does the discussion no good whatsoever. I notice that user:Miyokan has made many, many comments during this process without having them deleted. I believe I am entitled to register my opinion on the matter more than once.) Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
NPOV problems in post soviet history section. Article implies that Yeltsin caused economic crisis and collapse, and completely ignores economic collapse during last years of USSR. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica - The reforms beginning in the 1990s caused considerable hardships for the average Russian citizen; in the decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy contracted by more than two-fifths. The monetary system was in disarray: the removal of price controls caused a huge escalation in inflation and prices; the value of the ruble, the country’s currency, plummeted; and real incomes fell dramatically.--Miyokan (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/comment. I am not quite sure. On a positive side, this article has been significantly improved. A huge amount of work has been invested here. On the other hand, this article provides the Soviet/Russian propaganda version of history in many subtle ways. This is done by selecting sources that favor certain point of view and omitting others (hence, it does not follow WP:NPOV everywhere as suppose to be for a featured article). For example, it tells:

1. "Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF", and so on.

The text impies that US and IMF are responsible for reform's failure in Russia.

2. "Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia".

Actually, it were Chechen war and control of mass-media that "won" him popularity.

3. "After Lenin's death in 1924 a Georgian named Joseph Stalin consolidated power and became dictator"

This and other parts of text imply that Stalin's personality cult was responsible for mass terror in Russia. No, the terror as official state policy has been established by Lenin.

4. "Bolsheviks and White movement carried out campaigns of mass arrests, deportations, and executions against each other".

This implies that "Red" and "White" terrors were equally bad. No, it were only "Reds" who made the terror an official State policy that persisted for next generations to come. There are many things like that.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment also "a Georgian named Joseph Stalin" is a suspicious usage. It seems like an excuse: Soviet Regime was only evil because it was run by a Georgian. I would remove the reference to the nationality of Stalin and if necessary use some reference from his previous career instead. Suva Чего? 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Still not well-written. For example:
    • What is "Russia proper"? It's right up at the start of the second sentence, and we're still wondering.
    • Complicated sentence: "At 17,075,400 square kilometres (6,592,800 sq mi) and with 142 million people, Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering more than one-eighth of the Earth’s land area, and ninth-largest by population."—Deal with pop. first, then area, or it will cause the readers to hiccough. All of these hyphenated fractions need to be eased to "an eighth", etc. See MOS.
    • Extends across 40% of Europe? Just where is the eastern boundary? If it's not widely accepted, this is not appropriate, at least without an explicit rider on the spot.
    • "possesses", then "has". Surely "has" is good enough, twice.
    • "The nation's history begins with that of the East Slavs. The Slavs emerged"—"BeGAN".
    • "Greatly" twice; the first one could be removed.
    • "Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire to being the preeminent constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first and largest Communist state, and can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.[6]" Two quite different ideas jammed into the one sentence. "Being" is a problem—the grammar is inconsistent. "Can" begs a question. "Constituent" isn't the prettiest word you could use.
    • "and other global organizations"—A bit lame; every country is a member of global organisations; consider removing the clause.

Now these are just samples from the lead; they indicate a high density of issues and the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout. Whoever has done it since the last FAC hasn't done a good enough job. Tony (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose mostly due to lack of neutrality on the article (the article reads overly optimistic and nationalistic)
    • there there is absolutely NO information on transportation and tourism (which I believe are important for Russia)
    • culture section reads slightly overly optimistic. how does the average russian (the masses) relate to say literature, ballet and music?
    • also, all around the world there is a strong belief in the populare culture of russians and vodka. I am not trying to imply absolutely enything, but I do believe that this stereotype should be discussed somewhere (culture?). If it is not true they say why, if it is partially true, describe the situation, and what do authorities believe.
    • even the demographics section sounds overly praiseful. also, it might be appropiate to add the names of the cities above 1 pillion people, but is unnecessarly to add more. if it was me, I would only discuss the two biggest one and their role, and only list the ones that have between 1 and 1.5 million.
good luck with improving the article. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russia/archive4&oldid=1138470413"