Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Colourful, badass topic. However, I notice the nominator (User:JerrySa1) has not contributed here. The main contributors, judging from the history, are User:Mootros and User:Greyhood, but Greyhood has not edited since 2013. I realize this GAC has been in place since July; are you willing to pursue a nomination, ? Ribbet32 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, I will. Jerry (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from, unless you already consulted with him/her. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just saw this GA review. I was one of the original main contributions of this article. I was initially involved in trying to get this article merged into Zhirinovsky main pages. The current article is the result of a compromise and a long and partly painful editing process between me and another contributor. In the end it turned out to be a reasonable piece. Whether this is GA material in politics I leave this for other to decided. I certainly have not objections to this nomination, but don't think it meets GA. Best, Mootros (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm specially responding on the point on broad coverage, as discussed below. In my opinion this article has a sufficient level of width and breadth (if not too broad). Previous version of the article contain a considerable about of tangential and marginally relevant material that resulted in a rather unfocused and wordy article. As far as I remember, I removed material not because of some blacklisting but because of being irrelevant background information that I summarised in a sentence or two and facilitated with adequate wiki-links. Hope this helps. Mootros (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection of the article history, I find almost all irrelevant material restored via IP edits. This article certainly is not GA in politics, if anything it's a hotchpotch of triviality and tangential facts --for whatever purpose-- mashed up. I'm afraid the reviwers's own words Colourful, badass topic are rather fitting than the term "Good Article. Mootros (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

: 1a Reads fine, User:JerrySa1 took to Peer review. 1b  Lede was confusing to me until I got to Symbolism. I thought Zhirinovsky thought it was a good thing the donkey was a national symbol, and this is why he wanted the troika back as a symbol (a troika driven by donkeys?) I'd clarify briefly in intro that he indicated the donkey had unfortunately become a symbol and he wanted the troika instead. Also, a bit of weaseling in the lede- a mention of "comedy shows", but scroll down to third para of Content, it's only one comedy show. Why all the white space in Background? Generally with organization, "Content, controversy, discussions, and secondary usage" is way too much to synthesize into one section. I don't see much reason why the third para can be an intro to a "Response" section to which Animal cruelty can be a subsection.
 * Thank you User:JerrySa1 for your edits; can you explain "had 'got stuck' incp one place just as the donkey"? Also, Response should go after Symbolism, chronologically Ribbet32 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:JerrySa1; below concerns still outstanding. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  2a  Some of the references aren't formatted right. Three book sources are crammed into footnote 8, and it's not clear what "The troubled birth of Russian democracy: parties, personalities, and programs" is- author? Date? Publisher? Same goes with Russian Political Parties Directory. None of these refs use Template:Cite book. The BBC ref also doesn't use Template:Cite web and is missing relevant info- author, date, Retrieved date? Ref 17 uses a primary source (linked to Gutenberg.org rather than giving relevant book info)- but does this really support the statement that the book helped make the troika a national symbol? 2b  Major publications are used 2c. Review pending 2d. No concerns  :  3a. Quite a lot of content removed in 2013 by User:Mootros, including comparisons to Feodosia Morozova and Crime and Punishment. Can it be demonstrated where and why these sources were blacklisted, and can content be restored with new, reliable sources? 3b. Not a lot off-topic.
 * What happened to The troubled birth of Russian democracy?
 * What happened to ref 16? Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasnt' clear about the content User:Mootros removed, Jerry. I wasn't necessarily demanding the material should be restored. If the references can't be used, they can't be used; I was just curious about who blacklisted the references and when. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one reference AFAIK was blacklisted, and I know that it wasn't necessary but I still found the information important enough to re-add. Jerry (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 . 4. Nothing about Zhirinovsky's supporters? . 5. No edit wars taking place  6. Lede photo was found to be valid fair use at IfD. Other images are free
 * Criteria 2c review BBC ref supports characterizations of right-wing and populist, but not explicitly far right (a WP:BLP claim). I located one of the book sources; this needs to be added; Hanson ref needs a page number and corrected publishing info. Don't see mention of sheep named Ben in source- and having been written in 2000, the source doesn't tie Ben in with the ass. On hold Ribbet32 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jan 23

 * Almost all of Content is completely unsourced.
 * What happened to The troubled birth of Russian democracy?
 * Don't see mention of sheep named Ben in source- and having been written in 2000, the source doesn't tie Ben in with the ass.
 * On further review, I agree with Mootros that the removed content should have stayed removed. Troika info is superfluous, and the Other comparisons reference is permanently dead. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing due to over 7 days of inactivity on hold (failed on 2c, 3b, and . Although the question as to whether the article should be merged isn't checked for in the GA criteria, this perhaps requires more thought before renomination, and preferably from someone more involved in editing the article. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)