Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hero of Ukraine/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:09, 9 December 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Top three editors by edit count: Irpen, Zscout370, Sashazlv. Projects: Numismatics, Orders, Decorations, and Medals, Ukraine.

Article was promoted in 2005 and needs work to meet the current criteria. Talk page notice was given during December 2010.


 * 1a Article reads fine overall but the recipients section needs to be in a prose format.
 * 1c Sections and paragraphs have no citations. There are eight dead links to sources. Sources should follow WP:NOENG.
 * 2a Lead section is concise but consists of three one sentence paragraphs and is quite sparse.
 * 2c Date formatting is not uniform. Brad (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not one of the top contributers to the article, but I took the liberty of changing the "recipients" section into prose format, and adding some more info. I also think fixing the dead links shouldn't be much of a problem (at least for me) if I have the time to do it. I just have a few concerns to the nominator. Some of the problems you listed, could have easily been fixed by yourself. For example, the "not uniform date formatting" and the "sparse lead section". I also did not find your name in the history section of the article. Why do you nominate an article to be delisted, when you are not willing to do anything to improve it? Isn't the point of wikipedia to collaborate and improve articles? If so, please show some kind of effort to improve an article, beforing deeming it no longer featured article material. If you are so good at identifying problems, please fix some of them instead of starting discussions about what the problems are, and if there is something you can't fix, there are many editors who are willing to help out.--BoguSlav 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BoguSlav, please do not attack reviewers. Problems were listed on the talk page almost a year ago, and no editors appeared to help fix them. Brad has pointed out these problems here that they may be addressed, and criticizing him for not simply fixing them himself - especially given that many of his points are better addressed by major contributors or subject-matter experts - is unfair. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry. I understand not being able to find replacements to dead links because (in this case) he doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian. I'm not an expert on date formatting. Actually, I know nothing about it. But Brad seems to. I have an idea. I'll also join the cause of Wikipedia (spreading information to the world) by finding problems with articles and writing about them. In fact, I think Brad and I should start a Wikiproject together. I'm sure plenty others would be willing to join. - Please excuse my sarcasm, but my point is, that before someone nominates to delist an article they should first make a legitimate attempt to improve the article. --BoguSlav 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I got most of the dates to a uniform Day Month Year format. Would an infobox be appropriate?  Before I add it I wanted feedback so my effort is not in vain.  On the dead links I tried by I am not an SME and I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian.  I could use a little more feedback on the lead other than it is "sparse".  I will agree it is short but seems to cover the bases.  EricSerge (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think an infobox would be very appropriate. Order of Canada has one. My comments about the lead were more of a question than a critique. It's representative of the article body even though sparse. Brad (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist – As long as the cite tags and dead link tags are still present and valid, the article doesn't meet FA criteria. I also saw a couple citations before punctuation, a hint of possible MoS problems, but that is secondary to the apparently uncited content and dead links. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dead links and "citation needed" tags have been addressed. Do you know a good copy editor?  EricSerge (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in a copyedit request with the Guild of Copyeditors. Date formatting in the references needs to be standardized as there is currently a combination of dmy, mdy and ymd. Only use one format. External links used as references need to have retrieved on dates. I've done some cleaning to the article as well. Brad (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's still a cite tag in the Procedure section and a page needed tag in reference 2. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The last cite tag could be covered by the citation for the previous paragraph, other than the part about the Presidential Palace. Could someone who reads Ukrainian confirm that the crappy machine translation I read is correct?  EricSerge (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm finding some bad things with original research and citations not backing up the text given. Using photographs to cite material is not high-quality or reliable and it's original research. With the machine translations we're running into problems with WP:NOENG. We really need a fluent Russian/English translator and better sourcing. Brad (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist More serious 1c problems have arisen with source quality plus original research. Brad (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist Cleanup tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.