Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive3

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 by SandyGeorgia 18:45, 19 June 2010 [1].

National Anthem of Russia

Featured article review/National Anthem of Russia/archive1

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:FFA, has been on main page

The last time I was at FAC with this article around March, some of you had issues with the prose. Alright, fair enough. The article received a copyedit recently from User:Fartherred and has received an indirect one by User:Niagara (he posted the corrections at Wikipedia:Peer review/National Anthem of Russia/archive2 and I pasted them at the article) and another one from User:AnOddName. User:SMasters and ~~User:Archer888~~ (as Archer884) also performed early copyedits. Other users that checked for grammar was User:JamesBWatson and User:NativeForeigner. Some of the content itself was overhauled by User:Russavia. For example, he replaced the lead image with an actual video (one of the issues Tony1 had in the previous FAC) and replaced the regulations with a djvu file and uploaded more video and audio content that was published by the Kremlin. Some other changes were done by User:Seryo93. Overall, I am pretty happy with the progress since the last FAC and I hope you all are too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images use this image or other that doesn't have a postmark, File:Russian_anthem_poster_Moscow_cropped.jpg needs stated who owns the copyright of the work it is derived from, this image could also under go a keystone correction Fasach Nua (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is cropped from File:Russian_anthem_poster_Moscow.jpg, which I obtained the copyright permissions via Flickr. I can upload a new image now to replace the post mark. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the owner of the billboard I was interested in Fasach Nua (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...good point. Removing until the issue is sorted out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: These look OK. ~~In the bibliography the Sandved book requires a publisher.~~ Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abradale Press is the publisher. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does this phrase mean: In a November session of the Federation Council, Putin stated that a new national flag, coat of arms and national anthem is important to Russia should be a top priority for the country? Is it grammatical? I also think a source would be welcome for this: In a 2009 poll, about half of the respondents felt proud when hearing the anthem, but many either did not like the anthem or could not recall the lyrics. The Wiki ghost (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was suggested to me in the peer review, but I changed it to "In a November session of the Federation Council, Putin stated that establishing the national symbols (flag, anthem and coat of arms) should be a top priority for the country." That second statement is covered by citation 65 at http://www.cdi.org/Russia/johnson/2009-154-2.cfm. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I know how frustrating this will be, given all of the work that has gone into polishing the prose. But the lead alone is overloaded with clunky writing: "The anthem was unpopular, due to its lack of lyrics. In addition, it did not inspire some Russian athletes during international competitions. A few contests were then sponsored by the government to include lyrics in the anthem, however none were adopted." The first comma should be removed, and the first two sentences should be combined. The final sentence is in passive voice (active voice = "The government sponsored a few contests"), and the conjunctive adverb "however" needs a semicolon before it and a comma after.

There are many other such examples throughout the article; rather than spot-check individual paragraphs, however, I recommend removing it from FAC and doing another round of copyediting. I may be able to help, but I have a prior commitment to which I must first attend. Scartol • Tok 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had several before I came here the first time and the second time, I still find it hard to believe that there are still more examples of this problem. I already sent it to the copyeditor's guild, who else can I even prod? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The writing needs to be in a "short and sharp" state. Scartol is trying to say that it's slow and boring to read, for example, The anthem was unpopular due to its lack ... **falls asleep**. Another example, A few contests were then sponsored by the government to ... **tell me already**. Bring the action to the front of the sentence. Davtra (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment, that is the reason why there was an anthem change in 2000, so leaving that out will make summary not true. I did change the second statement. Anyways, do you think the two of you, in due time, will be able to make the text "more exciting?" User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never meant to imply anything about boring vs. exciting prose. Simply efficient vs. inefficient means of communicating information with the reader, along with adhering to the rules of polished writing. As I said, there are so many spots (and I'm so busy at present) that giving lists of examples is counterproductive. Scartol • Tok 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Can you quickly read the lead section? It was rewritten. Does it get the message across? Thanks Davtra (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The prose has been improved just enough to pass criterion 1a. I don't consider it "brilliant", and there are still some problems (frequently-repeating words, etc), but it has reached a suitably professional standard and I'm happy to Support. Scartol • Tok 12:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still looking forward to have people gloss over the text, but I am glad it meets your standards now. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the lead section. I don't know much about Russia and the Soviet Union. I think a brief history is appropriate. Scartol already made this suggestion in the article's talk page. This sentence in the first paragraph, Its musical composition and lyrics were adopted from the anthem of the Soviet Union, will make the reader question, "Why did Russia adopt the Soviet anthem?" The answer should be given after that sentence. These questions spring into my mind (answers should be in this order): What was the anthem used in Russia before the formation of the Soviet Union? What was the Soviet Union? When and why was the Soviet Union formed? Was Russia part of the Soviet Union? If so, that means Russia changed its anthem to the Soviet anthem, right? Who wrote the Soviet anthem? What anthem was used during the Soviet era? This need not be in great detail. I think the next paragraph about its collapse will link well. Davtra (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had it where both Alexandrov and Mikhalkov were the creators of the Soviet anthem. "Its musical composition and lyrics were adopted from the anthem of the Soviet Union, composed by Alexander Alexandrov and lyricist Sergey Mikhalkov. Alexandrov and Mikhalkov amended the anthem to evoke and eulogize the history and traditions of Russia." However, I will need to change that because Alexandrov died in 1944 and Mikhalkov was the only survivor when it came to the original 1944 Soviet anthem. (He died in 2009). I will give the lead a little bit of a fixing up now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.