Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of Belarus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.
Constitution of Belarus[edit]
After toying around with this for a few months, and passing WP:GA, I feel this article is ready. The only concern that I have with the article is the choice of picture for the main page; I admit the image I have up now isn't that great, but there are no free copies of the Constitution I could find on Google and other sites. Fair use would not be an option, since anyone can just snap a picture of it. I have a Constitution at home, so if a scan of the book cover is acceptable, then fine. But if you feel a substitute image, such as the State Emblem, would be acceptable for the main page, then I will remove the current image I have now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(see below) The article provides an adequate history and description, but there are many many missing aspects that prevent this from reaching FA status. While the Magna Carta and United States Constitution certainly have more history and literature surrounding them, these should serve as a guide for what a "constitution" page should look like. A historical review of the social and political circumstances leading to the convening of a reform assembly is currently present, but very short. What specific influences (either from other documents, history, or political philosophy)? Who were major actors (populists, military, old guard, reformists, etc.)? What were major motivators and controversies? While an outline description of the document and overview subsections is present, it would be greatly enhanced by including academic and/or judicial commentary on these sections sections, and the subsequent amendments and changes in interpretation should likewise include more context.I would also upload a copy of the Constitution to WikiSource and liberally link to it.Madcoverboy 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I see that this was already done in the external links.Madcoverboy 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what the MOS says, but I included the Wikisource link and included the document in the official languages of the country, Russian and Belarusian. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that this was already done in the external links.Madcoverboy 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, to address one of the objections, I already listed all of the influences that were present when the Constitution was made; other national constitutions, the period of Soviet rule and the desire to bring back Belarusian traditions that were nearly wiped out by the Soviets. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list other countries' constitutions is present, but no mention is made as to why they were included or why other constitutional republics were excluded. Similarly, did the Belorussian constitution influence others? Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source, BelTA, doesn't say why these Constitutions were included, they just said they were. To my knowledge, the Belarusian Constitution influenced no other constitution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list other countries' constitutions is present, but no mention is made as to why they were included or why other constitutional republics were excluded. Similarly, did the Belorussian constitution influence others? Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, I tried to find out who were the key players and I am not finding much in either Russian or English. The entire discussion about the Constitution, even from Government sources, just state discussion lasted for three years and once it passed, Belarus considered itself a part of the international community (which I covered). Not much is written about the document, other than how people claim Lukashenko abuses it or toys around with it. My focus is on the document, not about Lukashenko. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus is where it should be, but there needs to be more context for the document than just describing what each section says. Why, for example, did it take 3 years to write a Constitution? Mention is made to the separation of powers, but I thought it was interesting that Belarus has a Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court. These sorts of distinctions and political structures should be made explicit, rather than just floatin in an infobox no-one ever reads. Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a mention of the courts. As for why it took them three years, no idea. All sources I have found just said it took that time from the Declaration of State Sovereignty and passing the Constitution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus is where it should be, but there needs to be more context for the document than just describing what each section says. Why, for example, did it take 3 years to write a Constitution? Mention is made to the separation of powers, but I thought it was interesting that Belarus has a Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court. These sorts of distinctions and political structures should be made explicit, rather than just floatin in an infobox no-one ever reads. Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's hurting me is that, while the document is officially 13 years old, I have not found books talking about the constitution (other just pasting the constitution in it, verbatim, which I have in my room imported from Minsk), most English sites copy the document, say Lukashenko is a bad man or a "Liberate Us" site. Even going to government sites, they pretty much give the lines I already typed and paste the whole document. Everything here is everything that I know and that I could find, period. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has improved, but I still do not feel as though it is comprehensive enough as many of the sections read like stubs. As Piotrus suggests, the article would stand to benefit from a Belorussian editor with access to more primary sources. Madcoverboy 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What sections feel stubby to you? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When asking questions, I'm going to use analogies to the US since that's what I know best even if it is likely inappropriate or incompatible. 2 (has a state of emergency ever been called? is their ability to be revoked controversial?), 5 (how are the powers of local governments delineated from those of the national? ie, is it analogous to a State or a county in the US? do the local governments collect taxes and pay the federal government, assess separate taxes, what services are they and not allowed to provide?), 6 (what oversight does the judicial or legislative bodies have on these legal and auditor branches?), 7 (who creates the national budget? are there state entities that are budgeted differently (like Social Security in US)? are taxes assessed by census/headcount? regressive, progressive, or flat? taxed on income, sales, or business revenue?, 9 (sounds like there should be some more history or context about how the Constitution was implemented or what laws were in conflict). Basically what I'm getting at with these, it's not enough to summarize the Constitution, but the powers enumerated within it have to be placed within historical, cultural, and political contexts as well. While not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, the document was obviously a response to the Articles of Confederation that were too weak to create a viable central government, which was in turn a response to a legitimate concern about power concentrated in any one location or body (the Crown). This article currently lacks these contexts, thus the reasons for the Constitution granting these powers is unclear. Using the stereotypical "post-Soviet nations can't get liberal/secular/federal democracies/republics to work," are these Constitutional powers vestiges of the Soviet regime or responses to it? Madcoverboy 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem at all trying to use the US article, that is pretty much the only FA on a Constitution existing here. However, I am still researching your points now and I will come back with a full answer here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose The article has improved and includes some needed context. There is still a lack of jurisprudence on interpreting the constitution, sources which may not be easily available in either English or the United States. Madcoverboy 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want cases determining how the courts interpret the Constitution? If so, I can dig that up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose The article has improved and includes some needed context. There is still a lack of jurisprudence on interpreting the constitution, sources which may not be easily available in either English or the United States. Madcoverboy 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem at all trying to use the US article, that is pretty much the only FA on a Constitution existing here. However, I am still researching your points now and I will come back with a full answer here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When asking questions, I'm going to use analogies to the US since that's what I know best even if it is likely inappropriate or incompatible. 2 (has a state of emergency ever been called? is their ability to be revoked controversial?), 5 (how are the powers of local governments delineated from those of the national? ie, is it analogous to a State or a county in the US? do the local governments collect taxes and pay the federal government, assess separate taxes, what services are they and not allowed to provide?), 6 (what oversight does the judicial or legislative bodies have on these legal and auditor branches?), 7 (who creates the national budget? are there state entities that are budgeted differently (like Social Security in US)? are taxes assessed by census/headcount? regressive, progressive, or flat? taxed on income, sales, or business revenue?, 9 (sounds like there should be some more history or context about how the Constitution was implemented or what laws were in conflict). Basically what I'm getting at with these, it's not enough to summarize the Constitution, but the powers enumerated within it have to be placed within historical, cultural, and political contexts as well. While not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, the document was obviously a response to the Articles of Confederation that were too weak to create a viable central government, which was in turn a response to a legitimate concern about power concentrated in any one location or body (the Crown). This article currently lacks these contexts, thus the reasons for the Constitution granting these powers is unclear. Using the stereotypical "post-Soviet nations can't get liberal/secular/federal democracies/republics to work," are these Constitutional powers vestiges of the Soviet regime or responses to it? Madcoverboy 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What sections feel stubby to you? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has improved, but I still do not feel as though it is comprehensive enough as many of the sections read like stubs. As Piotrus suggests, the article would stand to benefit from a Belorussian editor with access to more primary sources. Madcoverboy 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Another excellent work from Zscout370, but the article could really benefit from collaboration and help from a Belorussian editor(s) with access to sources in that language. In the end, I think that for English Wikipedia being the best article on the subject in an English-speaking world is enough for Featured level, but yes, this still has room for improvement, per above comments.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked User:Vlad fedorov, a law student and a resident of the Gomel Oblast, to look at the article. Before I saw the comments by Piotrus, I managed to find out why the Constitution was delayed, some direct influences on the document by Russia, some comparisons. As what Piotrus said, I would love to work with other editors, but I just cannot find any or I got their help before. Other native Belarusian users have either been missing or have died in real life. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Madcoverboy gives some useful suggestions of things that could potentially be added to this article, and I also wonder if a bit more information about the process for amending the constitution couldn't be added (ala the US article). It seems to me, however, that such additions would most likely require the consultation of non-English sources, putting this excellent article beyond reach of FA status probably indefinitely. Considering that it is already a superb article, and at least in my opinion meets all the featured article criteria, I'd happily support it for FA status. Rebecca 04:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. I have added a sentence on what law conducts national referendums and I mentioned how they can be changed. Either both chambers pass it with a two-thirds majority (after a three month period has passed) or 50 percent plus one of voters support the amendments. I also noted on what sections can only be modified via only referendum. I admit this article is not as big as the US Constitution article is, but hopefully, it can be.User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks fine to me. —Nightstallion 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Further copyeditting is needed to remove redundancy from the prose, eg. the "of" could be removed from "all of the branches", and "various" could be removed from "they decide on the various bills that could become Belarusian law". Common terms like "vote" and "prison" shouldn't be wikilinked. Some full dates are wikilinked while others aren't; this needs to be consistent (including in the footnotes). "eighty-four percent", "77.3%", "83 percent" - more conistency is also needed with percentages. Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks. There shouldn't be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. Epbr123 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I checked the lead and everything mentioned there is mentioned in the article text. Working on the other issues you raised (should the dates be linked in just the article or both the article and reference links?). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the article and reference links. There is debate over whether dates need linking at all, but the most important thing is consistency. Epbr123 09:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is done, just now to do the references. I also left some notes at the talk page; I can see if someone can snag the prose, since that is something which it seems I fail at the most. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Links added to the references, the percentages bit are done, nuked most of the Wikilinks you mentioned, but the placement of the citations I still need to do, along with the prose. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite tags moved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Links added to the references, the percentages bit are done, nuked most of the Wikilinks you mentioned, but the placement of the citations I still need to do, along with the prose. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is done, just now to do the references. I also left some notes at the talk page; I can see if someone can snag the prose, since that is something which it seems I fail at the most. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the article and reference links. There is debate over whether dates need linking at all, but the most important thing is consistency. Epbr123 09:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the lead and everything mentioned there is mentioned in the article text. Working on the other issues you raised (should the dates be linked in just the article or both the article and reference links?). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose:
- The "History" section should be split into more paragraphs. It's difficult to read.
- I agree that there is insufficient content dealing with the context of the constitution's enactment, the objectives of the (as it were) founding fathers (who are they?) and so on, as put forth by Madcoverboy above. This article absolutely needs to be based on first-grade Belarusian primary and secondary sources, since sufficient English sources are apparently not available. Based on my experience working with Swiss constitutional law, I would recommend to draw heavily on the leading university textbook on Belarusian constitutional law, and also on the minutes of the Supreme Soviet meetings adopting the constitution as well as the report (I presume one exists) of the expert commission (which I also presume existed) that drew up the constitution. Sandstein 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I split the history paragraph and re-arranged a few things in there. I am still looking for those law sources, but just not getting any help from anyone. I'll see if the National Archives could help. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be well written and provides comprehensive information on subject matter. Avala 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks fine to me, as GA reviewer. Giggy UCP 01:16, 20 July 2007 (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.