Wikipedia:Peer review/Ukraine/archive1

Ukraine

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I believe the article is almost ready for FAC, but it's not there just yet. And I think some feedback from the community is just what it needs. All comments are appreciated. Thanks, Bogdan що? 11:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:This is a broad, complex, and interesting article. It is generally very well-written, well-illustrated, and informative. I have a few suggestions for improvement.


 * I would say that the weakest part of the article is the lead, which contains information not found in the main text and fails to mention whole sections of information found in the main text. An example of the former is the list of countries bordering Ukraine. The list appears only in the lead and not in the Geography section. Examples of whole sections not mentioned in the lead include language, literature, sport, demographics, religion, education, and infrastructure. Since the lead is to be a fair summary or abstract of the main text, the lead of this article needs considerable work. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a brief mention of the topics covered in each section of the article. For an article this comprehensive, it's probably necessary to write the final version of the lead last, after all the other sections are complete.


 * I found the punctuation of the first sentence of the "Etymology" section confusing. Perhaps something like this would be better: Ukraine is from Old East Slavic ukraina, meaning borderland. It derives from u, meaning by or at, and from the Slavic root kraj, meaning edge or region.


 * The direct link from the Etymology section to the Gallaudet site should be turned into a citation that appears in the Reference section.


 * The Manual of Style (MoS) says to avoid placing images directly below a second-level section head. Thus the map of the Golden Age of Kiev should be moved down or to the right.


 * Date ranges like 1917–1921 should be compressed to 1917–21 per the MoS.


 * Orphan paragraphs consisting of only one sentence should usually be merged with another paragraph or expanded. One example: "In Ukraine, gender roles also tend to be more traditional, and grandparents play a greater role in raising children than in the West." I see several others.


 * Full dates such as July 16, 1990, need a comma after the year.


 * Metric expressions should also be given in imperial units; i.e., 1200 km2. The primary unit, kilometres, should be spelled out. Expressions in degrees Celsius should also be given in °F.


 * The "Geography" section might also include some geology. What major geologic forces shaped the land that became Ukraine?


 * Except in complex listings such as tables of demographics, it's generally better to spell out "percent" rather than using an expression like 5%, according to the MoS. I see a mixture of the two (percent and %) throughout the article.


 * Reference 6 gives "The New York Times Terminology Of Nationalism Dec 3 1991" but needs an access date and might mention the Associated Press (AP) as the author. Most of the references look complete, but I'd recommend one more run-through.


 * Page ranges in the references should be connected by an en dash rather than a hyphen, and the second item in the range can often be shortened. Example: "Piotrowski p. 352-354" should be "Piotrowski p. 352–54".


 * To track down the last of the nit-picky things like the en dashes, the percents, and the metric conversions, you might seek the aid of a copyeditor who has not been working on the article and who, therefore, will be looking with fresh eyes.

If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, particularly one from the backlog, which is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * This is something I always question, but using a general encyclopedia as a source for a general encyclopedia is a bit odd. Any chance the Encyclopedia Britannica sources can be upgraded to something that isn't an general encyclopedia? Same for the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta.
 * Also should note that Encyclopedia Britannica is a fee required source.
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ (Says ... "Webzine of Community-submitted articles)
 * http://www.infoukes.com/
 * http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/
 * http://www.ukraine.com/corporate/
 * http://www.euroeducation.net/
 * http://www.ednu.kiev.ua/index_e.htm
 * http://www.energypublisher.com/
 * For consistency, either list authors last name first or first name first through out your references. Pick one style and go with it, rather than mixing them.
 * Please spell out abbreviations such as UNIAN in the references so that folks don't have to click through to see what they are.
 * Per the MOS, titles in all captials for websites shouldn't be in all capitals.
 * Make sure that your non-English sources state the language they are in in the reference.
 * Make sure your website references give the publisher and last access date always. (current ref 128 is an example of missing publisher)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)