Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive1

National Anthem of Russia
This article is about the Russian hymn that was adopted in 2000 with a fierce debate in the Duma. I tried to capture information about the adoption, and some of the reasons for it. I also tried to include past anthems, but only that was relevant to the article itself. It was moved once by me, but the location of the article is stable (I agree with its' current title) and I just hope I nailed everything that was supposed to be covered. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it's a small thing, but in my opinion it would be nice if there weren't so much blank space around the image of the sheet music. Perhaps this is because it's labeled as a gallery? Mak emi 21:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took the gallery out and I decided to make it a thumbnail (about 100 pixels). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Very poorly written. Here are two examples at the top.


 * "The anthem is composed by Alexander Alexandrov and its' lyrics were written by Sergey Mikhalkov. It constitutes a reintroduction of the music of the Soviet anthem but with revised lyrics ..."—"was composed", surely; "it's"; "constitutes" and "reintroduction" are not the right words here.


 * "there has been concerns raised"—ungrammatical and awkward; how about "concerns have been raised"?

This article needs a thorough copy-edit. Please consider withdrawing it and resubmitting after the English has been corrected throughout. Tony 13:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) PS Why the pics of the flag and Putin?
 * Because Putin was the one who orchestrated the change of the anthem and the Russian flag was put there by me for a lead photo. I did the same thing at My Belarusy, since I did not have a "cover sheet" of the sheet music that was under a free license (see Himno Nacional Mexicano for an example of a cover sheet). I'll fix the grammar myself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Overall the article is quite good; I fixed up several minor mistakes but the prose flowed well and it is well-written. Good work! Brisvegas 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed some more and I added Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit to the article, so it will get some attention pretty soon. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed some more, but overall, it looks good. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great article, well referenced. L1CENSET0K1LL 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Question/comment . It is a bit unclear what are all the differences betweeen this anthem and the Soviet National Anthem. Pehaps a section comparing it side-by-side with the old anthem would help? And also, wouldn't it be better to put the Adoption section at the end, to keep chronological order? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and move the adoption section; as for the comparisons between the Soviet anthem and the Russian anthem, the only thing was a change of lyrics and that's it; music is still the same. I do not want the article to be "lyrics heavy." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But is there a very significant change in the lyrics, or is there just a small variation? Because if it was a complete change, you can just mention it and point to the Soviet Anthem article. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Going to do that now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is fixed now. Changing to support. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose very strongly. Not even close to comprehensive. This is even worse than the Mexican anthem article. Write at least twice as much before this can even be properly considered. Everyking 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, what am I missing? (BTW, the Mexican anthem article passed). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I knew that I'd add it myself. The point is, the thing is short. Add 3-5 paragraphs to each section and we might be getting somewhere. Everyking 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As with the other article you mentioned, there is only so much you can write about certain subjects, and national anthems are one of them. The regulations section is a paraphrase of the federal law about the anthem, and most of the law is a list of do's and dont's. The historic anthems, which I covered breifly, are covered in the other articles. I tried to include as many recordings I can, but I was told that 4 is quite enough. I wanted to make the article relevant from 2000 forward. I have called in other Russian editors (like I called in Mexican editors to the Mexican anthem) and see if they can tell me if I am missing anything. But, as always, there is only so much that you can write about a national anthem (related to the anthem). Most of our NA related article is a small intro and a listing of lyrics. I know that the MX anthem article is longer than this, no question, but I believe this article is short and as concise as another anthem FA that I wrote, My Belarusy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. This one is good. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support; I've made a few more wording changes to attempt to tighten things up. Again, nice work from Zscout. —Spangineer[es] (háblame)  21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I created a history section at National_Anthem_of_Russia, so, in brief, the entire history of the anthemology of Russia is touched upon. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - can we please remove the reference citation from the lead and shift it into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since that specific website reference was used already in the body of the article, I just nuked it from the lead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Concise and informative. --NormanEinstein 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)