Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus/archive1

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 ). 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)
 * 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)
 * I'd prefer you use the infobox. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  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)
 * Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed the infobox due to the suggestions at the talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)

---
 * 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)
 * The law, at least as expressed in English, doesn't seem to cover former symbols. --Carnildo 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Replaced the image with the w/r/w flag I drew myself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, the flag drawing is PD-user. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Changed to Oppose – I would like Tony's comments resolved. Conditional Support Neutral – I've helped Zscout in PR, but I still feel it needs a copyedit. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Prose at the moment is acceptable, though would like to see my inline comments addressed.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments addressed. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Some other users have been copy-editing the article. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. 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. 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)


 * 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)
 * I'm changing my vote to Strongly oppose. The main author has reverted my recent work on the opening, so that typos (e.g., 'though' rather than 'through'), grammatical errors (countries mixed up with nationalities in a list), other stylistic problems, and inappropriate organisation of information are back again. Most reviewers don't bother to roll up their sleeves and try to improve the articles they oppose; I do, and if you don't want my help, I'll just go through picking out example after example of why this article is substandard, to support the case that it should not be considered for promotion to FA status (at the moment, it would be an embarrassment). I note the following statement at the top of the page: 'you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised'. By the way, I don't care what you interpret or misinterpret in the article on India, or Belgium, or any other country: if it's poorly done here, it doesn't bear comparison. Tony 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some of your stuff back in, but as I mentioned in the edit summaries, some of the information I cannot provide because it does not exist, like who selected Suskhvich to be the first leader. But, while I welcome the grammar errors, the gutting of the lead was what caused me to revert. But I am also adding back the useful information you have provided. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's get down to work. First, some random examples of what you've reverted after my numerous improvements to the opening sections.
 * 'The area of Belarus was settled by the Slavs'—It wasn't called 'Belarus' in those days; I'd fixed this nicely.
 * 'the 6th and the 8th century'—one or two of them?
 * 'caused the state to be impacted gravely'—nice one.
 * 'Belarus first declared their independence'—one country or several?
 * 'which still dominate the country today'—they don't just still dominate it, they still dominate it today, do they?
 * 'the invasion of the Mongols into Rus'—invasion into?
 * 'which was headed by under one monarch'—hello?
 * 'Belarus being officially called the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Soviet-era'—um....
 * 'Byelorussia and Ukrainian Soviet republics and the Soviet Union'—couple of things wrong here.
 * 'upon the issuing of May Constitution, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all subdivisions of the states and were merged into the Kingdom of Poland'—illiterate.

I must stress that these are only a small number of examples of the poor writing that pervades most sentences. I'm not dealing yet with what can only be described as an obsession with names and titles in the opening and the first section, including the information about informal surveys conducted by some obscure website to see which version of the name of the country was used on a majority of websites. This, before we've been informed of the major issues in summary, bird's-eye fashion, so we know just a little about the subject we're going to read about. This is where you need to engage the readers in your topic, convince them that it's worth reading on, not make them wade through endless names for the country in various languages at various historical times, complete with cyrillic script and transliterations, nested in a forest of parentheses. If you have to have this name stuff, it goes much further down, sequestered into its own section to warn off the majority of readers who won't want to wade through it. It can't possibly qualify. Tony 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am having a few folks copyediting the article. As for the names, like I said before, it is important. People need to know that when they see Byelorussia on the Internet, they need to know that it is an informal name for Belarus and is considered offensive to some. Plus, I included the informal survery in, since it was linked to the article before I even touched it. I thought it would be interesting to present in the article what name was used the most and used the least. Zach (Sound Off) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well keep going—there's lots to do. I hope someone's writing about the Soviet period. The section on Ecomony needs considerable work. Tony 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I will try to find out more information about the Soviet-period, and I am finding out a little bit more on Belarus trading with the European Union. I also could write about the use (or delay of use) of the Russian rouble. Zach (Sound Off) 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Particularly as the Soviet experience must have partly shaped Belarus as it now is. Some important matters may be: These are major issues, don't you think? Tony 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * to describe succinctly the Stalinist system in political and economic terms, as it applied throughout the Russian empire, with brief references to historical milestones within the period (the death of Stalin being one of them);
 * to describe how this may have applied in Belarus in particular, bearing in mind its economic strengths and weaknesses;
 * to describe how Belarus dealt with the fall of the centralised economy and Russian control: how is this still felt in the country?
 * Yeah, these are major issues that shoudl be dealt with, though I cannot promise on what else could be added. While Belarus did undergo an overhaul after the Wehrmacht left, I just do not know how much. As for the centralized economy, Belarus still uses that now, but Belarus was one of the last republics to leave the USSR. Though, IMHO, Russia still plays a key factor in Belarusian affairs, since Putin and Lukashenko usually meet each other a lot and have a good friendship. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, to give you a heads up, the article is 33kb big now. I am now getting warnings about the article is too large. If you wish, I can reformat the whole History of Belarus and add the fine details that you request. While I want to add as much as I can to please you, but I do not want to make the article too big for anyone. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment at Zach's request, I've gone through and copyedited the article as best I can. Could those pointing to spelling/grammatical errors in the text please check to see if they're still there (and if I've introduced any new ones!)?  Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll go through it later today. With respect to the Soviet period 'black hole' in this article, this is kind of information that would be of great value to some readers, is probably not easily findable on the net, and will give a deeper picture of the country today (and wouldn't hardly count as 'original research'). Is there any foreign investment in the country, given that it has apparently been slow to open up to capitalism? Is there resistance to attempts to internationalise the economy? (I'm sure this can be done in a NPOV way.) People considering doing business there might end up going to Wikipedia: now that would count toward's W's 'unique presence on the Internet', as stated in the criteria. We want to know about this. Tony 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not a huge secret that Belarus is going back to the Soviet-era, and many websites on both sides of the fence state the same thing. While the information is hard to come by, it will not count as original research if it has been published on the Net or in another source. If I made it up, then it would be original research. As for the foreign investment, I have read that some McDonalds are in there, but many of the industries are nationalized, such as the Belarus Tractor Factory. NPOV is not a problem, since (surprisingly) most people when coming to my articles about Belarus mention the grammar issues, not POV issues. Sorry about the earlier reverting and misunderstanding Tony. Zach (Sound Off) 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS It's not about pleasing me, but the readers. The section on government, which needs massaging, starts 'Belarus is a republic governed by a President.' Then we learn that there's a parliament. The caption about national dress implies that what you see is the only national dress. Is this the case? Tony 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I reworded the first part of the government and fixed the caption of the photo. The dress is not the only one that can be worn in Belarus, but during various cultural and ceremonial events, there will be people dressed like that in some way. Zach (Sound Off) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More on the basic structure of goverment, please. Can the President veto legislation, and can the veto be overriden by the legislature? Is the current president the inaugural holder of that office? Surely each chamber by itself can't create laws: that's what it says currently. What is the process for changing the constitution (two-thirds majority in both houses, possibly)? Surely the Consititutional Court isn't a 'sub-court' ....? Does the upper house have no choice but to confirm judicial nominations (not 'appointments', please) by the President.

These are basic matters that readers deserve to find when they go to Wikipedia after hearing of some crisis in Belarus's government. Tony 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also happened to write the article Constitution of Belarus. While I do not know much about the governmental functions, but from what I seen, if Luka wants something done, he will decree it. Even if it is important like national symbols, he institutes them via decree. While Lukashenko is the first and only elected head of state, there was a guy before him that served from 1991-1994 at the position of Speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Zach (Sound Off) 03:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some of the information you wanted in above, and some was already there in the history section. However, I am at 34kb now and my edits are not saving at all. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits that don't save are a general problem at the moment, unrelated to the size of an article. Check whether they are in fact saved, even if you get the notice that they haven't. The suggested size of 32 kb is only a guideline. Many country articles exceed this. More history is needed (Soviet period), and I don't think it matters it you go over, even up to 40 if absolutely necessary. Tony 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At least 40 gives me some type of benchmark to reach for, since Australia is about 40kb. Zach (Sound Off) 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the Soviet period. Tony 09:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, after seeing oppositions from above. Article is well written in many ways, but needs some more work. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the claims in the Economy section require referencing. I've made a few changes where it was looking a little POV. I still think the lead:
 * requires a few sentences at the end of the paragraph, giving a bird's-eye view of the topic
 * should have only very brief mention of the name, in English and Belarussian only, without the cyrillic script (leave that for the articles in cyrillic, since here, it complicates matters for the reader, where we want to captivate them)
 * should be followed by a briefer section on the history of the name of the country.
 * Which particular claims do you think need citing? As for the name part, I was asked to expand it earlier at this FAC. Even with a short statement about the name, people will still ask who started it, when did it start and other things. What else are you suggesting for the lead? Zach (Sound Off) 06:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing, as for the "birds-eye view," did you want it at the economy article and what do you want me to say in it? Usally, if the section is going to sound like a lead, then it should be at the head of the section. Zach (Sound Off) 06:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)