Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarusian Republican Youth Union/Attempt 1

Belarusian Republican Youth Union
Self-nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. On a topic that is unfamiliar to 99.9 % of Wikipedia's reader- and editorship, it is not possible to know that it is NPOV just a week after the article's creation. I strongly suggest that you postpone the nomination for at least a month so that the article can mature, especially since it is on a potentially contentious subject. So far, it has only been edited by the nominator. If you can get a few editors from be:& and ru:& that are familiar with the organization, that would ease my fears. As to clearly-addressable objections; the article does not go into how the organization is structured at all. Where is it based, is it divided into chapters? How is its leadership selected / elected? How large is it? How much funding does it have? Is it free to be a member? Are there other organizations with similar goals that enjoy the same benefits? &mdash; David Remahl 05:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As for other editors working on it, I do not think it is even possible. I, pretty much, will probably be the only person working on the article. Also, the reason why I placed it here is that the past few times I went to peer review, I was not getting anything on my articles because of the obscurity of them all. As for your objections (which, you do not need to apologize at all and you were not questing my objectivity, I tried to make it as NPOV as possible), they are valid. Yes, they do have branches and I will list the ones that are listed on the BRSM website. As for the actual scructure, I will also find that too. I do need to list the number of BRSM members, though the last figures I got were from 2003. While the BRSM is funded by the Belarusian Government, I do not have the exact number of what they got. I do not know about memembership details, but I can also find that out. I found a list of other such organizations similiar to the BRSM, but only the BRSM is supported by the government. The organization is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The image Image:Lukashenko 2005.jpg is claimed under fair use.  Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible.  If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The current copyright of the image is © 2001-2005 Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus. The source of the image is at http://president.gov.by/ii/gallery/mrsh/2.jpg. I used this photo since President Lukashenko is wearing a ribbon, which is part of the "For Belarus!" campaign by the BRSM to promote patriotism inside Belarus. This also shows Lukashenko's support of the BRSM, a youth group created and sponsored by Lukashenko and his government. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The law cited in the "public domain" tag does not appear to apply to the image. It is not a formal document, a state symbol, or a work of folk art. --Carnildo 04:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will revert back to the fair use tag and claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Object – I too feel that it should be allowed to "gather some moss" by wikipedians. A fresh article on a relatively obscure and potentially POV topic should be left alone for about two months before nomination. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * But, as I said above, the only person who would touch this article is me. While if yall want to check the POV out and see if the article is NPOV, I have sources from the US Government, Belarus Embassy in the US, President Lukashenko, the UN and the IWPR. While I still need to fix some things the first user brought up, and explain my fair use claims, I will try to add more content if I can find anything. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Wikipedia's strength comes from many eyes. If an article is not exposed to many eyes, and I fully believe you when you say it won't, then it is not "Wikipedia's best work". &mdash; David Remahl 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And, the reason why it will not have many eyes because not everyone focuses on Belarusian topics. That was why I took it straight here, since I would have received nothing on peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zscout, I've been in your shoes. I'd nominated Gangtok in January when it was absolutely brand new and I was the sole author. Despite having references etc., it failed then on the same count "too fresh", but I renominated it in May?June and it succeeded. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. At least when I run this a second time through, I should have most of my ducks in a row. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. It will probably get useful feedback here. But if people on the English Wikipedia don't focus on Belarusian topics, then they shouldn't be featured articles. Unfortunate, possibly even self-fulfilling, but true. &mdash; David Remahl 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I know before working on this article that there is a bias against Belarusian articles. The only FA article that deals with a Belarusian topic is the Hero of Belarus title, which I also started and built up. I got some attention, but mainly people inserting POV against Lukashenko. While, yes it is true that he has been declared a dictator by our government and by free Europe, the article was about the medal itself and its honorees. However, this article is about a youth group started and run by Lukashenko's government. While there could be more of a POV issue there, I tried to balance it out the best I could. I will follow Nichalp's suggestion and just give it a few months to let it gross moss. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object : no category, and too few ilinks (for example, the lead should link terms like youth group, moral values, propaganda, Lukashenko and several others. I also think that an article should be given a little more time, and go to peer review before FAC. Nonetheless, this is a good article, and I will support after the above objections are adressed. I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud Zscout for doing excellent job on Bielarus-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I added two categories, added some more ilinks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment currently the references are just URLs. It really helps to keep author/date/title/summary information, and preferably to say what has been taken from each.  The reason is that it is possible for the contents at the end of your URL to disappear or change; if you keep biblographic information it's much easier to find the same material again later.   Mozzerati 06:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)