Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:50, 14 September 2005

Belarus

After a good session at Peer Review, I feel that this article is ready for FAC. While I have worked on Belarusian related articles before, I was asked to edit the main Belarus page. I took the user up on the suggestion and made significant improvements to the article (Diffs [1]). While I worked with two great editors at Peer Review, I welcome others comments as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why this article doesn't use the Template:Infobox country? CG 12:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Because I used the template so we can stick more things into the article (eg free up space). Plus, I went off the format of Belguim's article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer you use the infobox. User:Nichalp/sg 15:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, I saw the box, and it could be easily turned to the template. I prefer that at least featured articles follows a little more standarisation. CG 18:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      - Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the infobox due to the suggestions at the talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object:
1. ~~The image Image:Stanislav Shushkevich.jpg is claimed under fair use, but does not indicate the creator/copyright holder. Without that, it's not possible to claim fair use.~~
2. The image Image:Belarus dress.jpg is claimed as "public domain" on the grounds that it's from a US Government web site. However, images on the Library of Congress are in general not works of the federal government. The actual copyright status of this image needs to be determined.
3. The image Image:BelarusHistoricalCoatOfArms.png is claimed as "fair use and permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to get the creator of the image to release it under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?
--Carnildo 22:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- For the third image, I will just remove it outright. Though, IMHO, it falls under {{PD-BY-exempt}} since it is a former national symbol. The second one, I will provide information on the copyright holder. For the first image, I have the copyright of the website that hosted the image, but I do not know much about the copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The law, at least as expressed in English, doesn't seem to cover former symbols. --Carnildo 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the third image, I added the copyright of the website hosting the first image and I reverted to the fair use image for the second one (since I know the author and copyright). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've found copyright information for the newer version of Image:Belarus dress.jpg. It's from the Library of Congress Country Studies series: one of the few cases where something on the LOC website is public domain as being a work of the federal government. I've reverted to that image and updated the description page accordingly. --Carnildo 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Wipes forehead Ok, while I know you still object about the first photo, I did not get a response from the website on who made the photo I am using. While I know where it came from and the copyright of the website, I have no clue who took the photo or when it was taken (but it is from 1991-1994, if that helps). I am also using this photo because it has a photo of the 1991 flag. I have drew a photo of the 1991 flag, and we could use that instead if you choose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You should replace the photo. Without knowing the copyright holder for the image, it's not possible to claim fair use. --Carnildo 21:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Replaced the image with the w/r/w flag I drew myself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the flag drawing is PD-user. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support as long as there are no objections and the lead clearly states it is a dictatorship. Impressive - Zscout is doing great job (as usual), but I am not sure if this is comprehensive - I fixed some links/problems in the history section (which partially overlaps with Polish one). There may be some other links which can benefit from fixing. If there are no objections, I assume it is comprehensive and support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead states "Since independence, Belarus has been the focus of international attention due to the authoritarian leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994. Due to this, Belarus has been excluded from joining the Council of Europe. Belarus is considered to be Europe's last dictatorship." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support ~~Neutral – I've helped Zscout in PR, but I still feel it needs a copyedit. User:Nichalp/sg 10:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~~ Prose at the moment is acceptable, though would like to see my inline comments addressed. User:Nichalp/sg 13:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comments addressed. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concern that the text needs a thorough run-through to bring it up to standard (Wikipedia says 'brilliant' prose). I'll give it a go some time after Tuesday, after which I'll decide whether to support the nomination. Tony 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other users have been copy-editing the article. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

- Comment

Considering the size of the country - This article has a large and expansive scope and I feel it adequately begins to address the lives and people of the land. Nice anthropological work Zscout! 69.161.109.170 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. Tony 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ppose—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's very densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at all. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. Tony 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of the changes, because India (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 **It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's ''very'' densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at ''all''. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
+*'''ppose'''—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's ''very'' densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at ''all''. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 :I reverted some of the changes, because [[India]] (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might  get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Support'''. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] [[User talk:A Link to the Past|(talk)]] 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)