Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alexander Lukashenko/1

Alexander Lukashenko

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Alexander_Lukashenko/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Consensus to delist, following the identification of specific issues that remain unresolved. CMD (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Article has been flagged as needing GAR for over a year. There are outstanding cleanup tags and banners on the article. It may also need updating in light of 2020 Belarusian protests. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Going by the Good article criteria this article fails on more than one point:
 * 1)  Well written: It is not well written. A caption with a photograph reads "Demonstration in Warsaw, reminding about the disappearances of opposition activists in Belarus". This is partly because there is not enough oversight and broad coverage of his life and career.
 * 2)  Verifiable:  For the most part at least, it seems verifiable. I am going through the article chronologically and having encountered some minor issues with the pre-presidential part of Lukashenko's life, coverage of the first term of his presidency seems woefully bad. For example, a source on the 2004 presidential election was referenced under coverage about the 1995 referendum. see here
 * 3)  Broad in its coverage:  I have not evaluated more than up to the first presidential term but from casual reading I feel that a balanced view of his policies is missing. Under Policy the subsections veer into a jumble of; Domestic policy, Accusation of forced disappearances, Economic policies and Coronavirus with little coherence. A more focused approach is needed. Basic facts were wrong such as date of birth, which changed from being August 30 to 31 sometime around 2009.
 * 4)  Neutrality: Unsure about neutrality. Coverage of first presidential term is very forgiving to say the least. It is easy to find critical secondary sources that describe how Lukashenko consolidated power by forcing through the referendum in November 1996 using what were widely described as undemocratic methods by various Western institutions. There is not even mention of Viktar Hanchar there although he was Lukashenko's main adversery in the Supreme Soviet (if I understand correctly) who was the head of the Central Election Commission of Belarus. Who Lukashenko replaced with Lidia Yermoshina.
 * 5)  Stable: Stable from disinterest it seems.
 * 6)  Illustrated: Illustrated, yes.

In short, serious issues with regards to quality of article. Should be delisted. --Jabbi (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So, can we remove the good article sign then? --Kimjongundprk4life How do I do that for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kimjongundprk4life It can only be delisted after an uninvolved editor closes the review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

--

This re-assessment seems to be quite stale. I would like to raise a couple of points in addition to the points made by and me above in the hope that this process can be expedited.


 * Originally it was given GA back in 2013, a lot has happened since then and one of the current problems of the page is lack of overview of the subject
 * when I started editing this page there were about four Citation needed tags, I have commented them out along with their respective statements as it does not impact their context but this just shows that the page needs more editing
 * analysis is very light, as I have talked about in his first term, I am about to research his second term further but note that I have just finished covering the turbulent events of 1995 and am about to look into 1996, currently the coverage just starts with "In the summer of 1996, deputies of the 199-member Belarusian parliament signed a petition to impeach Lukashenko on charges of violating the Constitution" - no context.
 * there is an undue weight tag and a stray from the topic tag

It seems to me rather obvious that it should be stripped of a GA.

--Jabbi (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree completely but as stated above, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to close it according to the instructions at Good article reassessment. often does closes at GAR but IDK if they're currently active. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging subject experts, if you could kindly participate:, ,. --Jabbi (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say delist. There is an undue weight tag, and several issues. SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)