Talk:Alexander Pechersky/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Put on hold because the lead summary does not adequately represent the article. See MOSlead

There were some minor fixes that I made. Quotes over 4 lines should be in block quotation MOSquotes. I fixed it. Also date formats should be consistent throughout MOSdates Again, I fixed it.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Extremely interesting article.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Extremely interesting article.
 * Extremely interesting article.


 * I am failing this article at the nominators request. I felt I was following the MOSlead guidelines. What has resulted is an unnecessary edit war between nominator and reviewer.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ishtar456 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The following cut and pasted from the nominators user page:


 * hi again, I'm not quite finished with the review, but I thought I would give you a heads up about an issue that would cause me to put it on hold. The lead only summarizes his part in the uprising.  It should be a summary of the whole article, including early life, his induction into the military, his marriage and his death, etc.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * i added some of the things u wanted. the problem is that he lived as quiet as a mouse. a man few would remember seeing in a room with other people. a non-descript, quiet man who spend years before and after the war teaching amateur violinists and saxophone players. nothing can be referenced about his marriage but the 1 sentence how he met his wife, and that is in the main part of the article. I saw no reason to repeat it in the intro since he never spoke about her, and it is unknown whether his marriage was successful or not. Pechersky was basically a nobody who for 21 days shined and did something so incredible that his deed must be remembered, praised and emulated by all oppressed people today and 1000 years from now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The summary should represent the whole article. It is perfectly acceptable to repeat info. that is in the main article. "He was married and had (insert number of) children." "He died on (insert date)". Since these details are in the article, they must also be in the lead.--Ishtar456 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See, but they don't have to be in the lead. Show me the Wikipedia rule that states that the lead must list everything in the main article. He refused to talk about his wife, didn't live with her, didn't talk about his children (0 refrences). I am not sure what you expect if there is nothing referenced regarding even the names of his children or their gender. Look at article about Napoleon and see how many of his relatives (who were appointed kings of major European countries) names are listed. Meishern (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did what you asked. Please see if there is anything else I should do. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not over the seven day limit. I was going to give you a little extra time anyway, since I guessed you were away. I am going to be busy, at least until Wednesday, so you have a little more time to work on the lead, spend a little more time "tweaking" it. Mention his family. Break it into a few paragraphs (2-4 is acceptable). I just looked at it quickly tonight and I see "World War 2", the 2 should be Roman (II) and it should be wikilinked. The first mention of a phrase like that should be wikilinked. After I give it a good read I will let you know what I find. I will not fail it without giving you some time to fix anything I might find, if it is small I will fix it myself. I think it is an excellent article, just have to give it an excellent lead.--Ishtar456 (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The introduction to the article about Napoleon never mentioned the love of his life Josephine. The introduction to article about Ronald Reagan says nothing about Nancy. I can mention dozens of other featured articles that don't mention wifes, dogs, cats and favorite brand of underwear in the intro paragraph. Your insistance to mention Pecherskys wife in the intro paragraph has no benefit or logic. I think your criteria is off. I would like another person to review this article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not do the strange suggestions you requested to 'gimp' the article. I would prefer you fail the article than implement your suggestions that would weaken it. I spend over 40 hours researching and writing it, and I feel it is fine as is without mentioning Pechersky's unknown children and wife, along with your other strange ideas. I prefer to spend my time writing original content than listening to editorial suggestions that I know make no sense. You are entitled to your opinion however. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A spouse is not a favorite brand of underwear. If you had not mentioned a wife in the article, I would not suggest you add her to the lead summary. The lead summary should represent the article See MOSlead. I did not say "gimp", I said "tweak", which means "to make better". I'm shocked by your reaction. I think that you are a half centimeter from having me pass this article and you are asking me to fail it. I'll let you think about your request today and if you do not change your mind I will fail the article. What a shame.--Ishtar456 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * on second thought. I have your wish.  I will fail the article as you suggested.  I too have better things to do than get into an edit war over something as minor as this.  I think I tried to help you improve your article and have it pass GAN fairly easily.  I think there maybe a language barrier, or something impeding out communicate.  Anyway. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand what specifically you want. Perhaps my reaction was a bit out of order, yet you were never clear about your expectations besides changes to roman numerals and inclusion of wife into the intro section that should be expanded into 2-4 paragraphs. I spend 30 minutes looking at featured articles. Unfortunately this article will never qualify, since there just isnt enough referenced info. If you would please give me a list of what you expect to see in the intro, or anywhere else. I feel Mr. Pechersky deserves recognition so I will follow your lead as long as those suggestions dont interfere with the flow of the article. Sorry again if I snapped out a bit. I guess I am sensitive about the content I write. heh. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you that I would not have time to give it a good read until after today. I am on my way to the hospital right now for a friend's surgery and had planned to give the article my full attention this tomorrow.  I peeked in this morning to see that you had attacked me is several places.  I think that you are an okay writer, but I don't think you read carefully.  In any case I think that you overreacted and you have you wish I will fail the article. Anymore communication on this matter should be on the GAN discussion page.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Comments from Author of Article --


 * I had the quotes properly formatted, but I guess someone else edited it and took them out for who knows what reason. I am trying to contact Thomas Blatt to allow him to donate 1 photo of Pechersky in the twilight of his life (nice photos). If he refuses, and the photos were taken in Soviet Union I believe that an act of Russian Congress in 1994 made all photos taken prior to 1992 within the old Soviet Union (that are not covered by secrecy laws), public domain whether they were taken by citizens, tourists or journalists. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the quotes in block format: Quotes over 4 lines should be in block quotation MOSquotes.--Ishtar456 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

--

I hope this is the GAN page. I write articles and am unfamiliar with Wikipedia acronyms. In any case, I rewrote the intro section. Still needs a bit of tweaking I think since I am not completely happy with it. Any comments would be appreciated. I hope your friend recovers. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. The intro aint too bad now. I still feel its missing something, just not sure what yet. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)