GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tezero ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
While I'm waiting for my own GANs (which are not in the area of politics, FWIW) to get reviewed, I think I can knock out this one.
Good Article review progress box
|
I'll get to the prose and stuff later. Tezero ( talk) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Pass for everything else, but I'm really getting opposed to Russia not being covered. I mean, a quick Google search for "russia superpower" pans up numerous articles on whether it will or won't become one from the likes of Forbes, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, US News, the Guardian, etc. And I'm sure if I remembered my university's username and password for JSTOR I'd get a good amount there, too. I don't think it should be too difficult... Tezero ( talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This articles subject sits firmly within the boundaries of political science, therefore, relying solely on the opinions of commentators from Forbes or the LA Times would be grossly inappropriate. Instead, this article needs to represent current academic consensus through the use of reliable academic publications. If a well established consensus among political scientists can be found, then additional citations from Forbes or the LA Times are welcome, as they act to reinforce this consensus and can give different perspectives on some of the finer points discussed in the article. Having been involved for some time in the development in this article, I can say with much certainty that this is how the article is presently structured.
The trouble with Russia is there is no broad consensus among political scientists as to its potential of being a superpower, but there is an abundance of sensationalist commentary that claims Russia is or will be a superpower again. Unfortunately, sensationalism doesn't belong here. Furthermore, many academic publications may feature titles including buzzwords such as "Russia... resurgent... superpower", but the author will instead go on to assert that Russia is simply an emerging power or trying to halt its decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not a potential superpower.
Would it be wise then to give Russia its own section in the article? Probably not, as being covered in such a way would improperly imply that Russia is somehow equal to China, the EU and India regarding its potential of being a superpower. By "equal" I refer to the popular opinions of political scientists and the broad consensus that can be found for China, the EU and India - but not Russia. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So, have we decided what will become of the countries besides China, India, and the EU? Tezero ( talk) 05:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Brazil and Russia according to main academic sources must stay totally out (they aren't for several economic, dempographic and military aspects). Lost time using nationalism or similar things to change a well written article.I even doubt of India as potential superpower( this is based on several main academic reports). 95.233.11.138 ( talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Occultzone.No other political beings can be in the article in the foresable future (i doubt even of India,but this is just an opinion based on some academics writings) 95.233.11.138 ( talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure that we can't even bring them up as countries that sources have acknowledged there's discussion about being potential superpowers, but dismiss these claims themselves? Tezero ( talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero. I like the suggestion you made above (on 1 July). I left a message on your talk page ( here) a few days ago saying such, but I didn't get a reply so you may not have seen it? But yes, I do like like that rather smart suggestion you made. Until then, what's the status with the GA review? Its hard to make out which comments above belong to who, and I am rather suspicious of that pro-Russian POV pushing IP! With good reason too. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Tezero ( talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Try with CIS to be luckier....if you won't be luckier with CIS that includes Russia it means that Russia can't be in this article.This insisting about Russia is becoming non sense. 82.48.139.245 ( talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have asked WT:POLITICS for input on the inclusion of nations besides the big three. Other users may be coming in. Tezero ( talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Completeness is probably good enough at this point for GA, but as it stands, the ref layout is abysmal. I'll try to fix some of them; I'd appreciate some help. (One of the titles is literally "An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie", and its link is dead.) Tezero ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Also regarding the lead, it ought to briefly summarize the arguments for and against each of the big three. Tezero ( talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now Wikipedia has a low level article.Greetings!Somebody here wrote and acted in a too free way wihtout sufficient sources about Russia and Brazil.Are now all happy?Even the crying russians?Why don't we add Madagascar and Nicaragua too? 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In the article Russia can't be defined current superpower because in Wikipedia the sole current superpower are USA.The content of Russia is really low and not sufficient.No sufficient sources by academics.Brazil same.All rubbish to be deleted. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that after the DISASTER ( so i name this change) all people are disappeared.Russia and Brazil haven' t sufficient sourcies in quality and quantity to stay in the article.I 'm sorry but many people that should check writers have no idea (like some of writers).The rating of "Other contenders" part is 0.I'd delete India too according to main sources.A DISASTER THIS ARTICLE AFTER THE LAST CHANGE.Some historicians of main universities will have time to laugh. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems somebody is is insisting with current...Russia can't be defined so because in the article only USA are defined so.Before the pro russians wanted the finger and now the arm.... Russia like brazile shouldn't neither be there.All rubbish.The part od "Other contenders" is based on very particular opinions not supported by very high academic sourcies but only by old sources (some of them were in the article "Superpower" some years ago).The simple fact that many people criticize this (me too like the majority) by high level sources is more than sufficient (See Antiocus the Great that well set the article). 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My dear russian,current can be used only for USA.You explained nothing.We could add current to China and EU too for istance."Or current " can't be used otherwise it means that Russia could be even now a superpower.We could use the same for EU and China referring to many sourcies.A lot of rubbish today in this article.Greetings. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This the example of a bad article in Wikipedia.I SUGGEST TO RESTORE ALL without "Other contenders" FIRST OF ALL and possibly without India. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone they don't want to reply if there is no new update, the only other one is a 2008 source they have, that's it.
Heh, this discussion's almost as long as the article now. Play nice, you two! Tezero ( talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
-- 192.173.144.237 ( talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
By russian fingers this article has fallen really low....why don't they find many academic sources of high level supporting CIS as superpower?Russia is in it and CIS should be a potential superpower.82.... is right.They avoid to look for CIS( Russia even lost its influence on Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia -the last one since longe time:Russia lost its influence in mostly all former USSR allies too) because it hasn't sufficient sources and Russia isn't a potential supepower.If Russia were a potential superpower CIS should be with more reason a potential superpower.But they have nothing of high quality about it. I suggest to add aside Russia and Brazil ("Other contenders") also Turkey and South Africa and others that had sources for name them potential superpowers.I repeat,the best thing is TO RESTORE ALL (possibly without India). It seems that russians are helped a lot having in their hands NOTHING .It seems other people opinions based on strong points (sources and other) are neither considered.Russian crying (many other russians could arrive in this page to support their Russia and to forget Wikipedia standards) for long time works better. 151.40.13.161 ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So now we see the true faces of writers.Spashibo, i Do svidania!These people have changed the article that must be restored.They used not sufficient sources.But soon the right will be restored in this rubbish article.How many academic sources against Russia in this article do you need?I already posted 3.Do you need more?I saw also the majority is against Russia and brazil in the article.Here there's something shaganigan. 151.40.65.156 ( talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I don't mean to badger you too much, but what do you think of the article's status? Tezero ( talk) 05:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* I don't even care about date and publisher formatting and all that anymore. I just want the article to be stable and the source formatting to not be completely inconsistent. Tezero ( talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tezero ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
While I'm waiting for my own GANs (which are not in the area of politics, FWIW) to get reviewed, I think I can knock out this one.
Good Article review progress box
|
I'll get to the prose and stuff later. Tezero ( talk) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Pass for everything else, but I'm really getting opposed to Russia not being covered. I mean, a quick Google search for "russia superpower" pans up numerous articles on whether it will or won't become one from the likes of Forbes, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, US News, the Guardian, etc. And I'm sure if I remembered my university's username and password for JSTOR I'd get a good amount there, too. I don't think it should be too difficult... Tezero ( talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This articles subject sits firmly within the boundaries of political science, therefore, relying solely on the opinions of commentators from Forbes or the LA Times would be grossly inappropriate. Instead, this article needs to represent current academic consensus through the use of reliable academic publications. If a well established consensus among political scientists can be found, then additional citations from Forbes or the LA Times are welcome, as they act to reinforce this consensus and can give different perspectives on some of the finer points discussed in the article. Having been involved for some time in the development in this article, I can say with much certainty that this is how the article is presently structured.
The trouble with Russia is there is no broad consensus among political scientists as to its potential of being a superpower, but there is an abundance of sensationalist commentary that claims Russia is or will be a superpower again. Unfortunately, sensationalism doesn't belong here. Furthermore, many academic publications may feature titles including buzzwords such as "Russia... resurgent... superpower", but the author will instead go on to assert that Russia is simply an emerging power or trying to halt its decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not a potential superpower.
Would it be wise then to give Russia its own section in the article? Probably not, as being covered in such a way would improperly imply that Russia is somehow equal to China, the EU and India regarding its potential of being a superpower. By "equal" I refer to the popular opinions of political scientists and the broad consensus that can be found for China, the EU and India - but not Russia. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So, have we decided what will become of the countries besides China, India, and the EU? Tezero ( talk) 05:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Brazil and Russia according to main academic sources must stay totally out (they aren't for several economic, dempographic and military aspects). Lost time using nationalism or similar things to change a well written article.I even doubt of India as potential superpower( this is based on several main academic reports). 95.233.11.138 ( talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Occultzone.No other political beings can be in the article in the foresable future (i doubt even of India,but this is just an opinion based on some academics writings) 95.233.11.138 ( talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure that we can't even bring them up as countries that sources have acknowledged there's discussion about being potential superpowers, but dismiss these claims themselves? Tezero ( talk) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero. I like the suggestion you made above (on 1 July). I left a message on your talk page ( here) a few days ago saying such, but I didn't get a reply so you may not have seen it? But yes, I do like like that rather smart suggestion you made. Until then, what's the status with the GA review? Its hard to make out which comments above belong to who, and I am rather suspicious of that pro-Russian POV pushing IP! With good reason too. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Tezero ( talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Try with CIS to be luckier....if you won't be luckier with CIS that includes Russia it means that Russia can't be in this article.This insisting about Russia is becoming non sense. 82.48.139.245 ( talk) 08:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have asked WT:POLITICS for input on the inclusion of nations besides the big three. Other users may be coming in. Tezero ( talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Completeness is probably good enough at this point for GA, but as it stands, the ref layout is abysmal. I'll try to fix some of them; I'd appreciate some help. (One of the titles is literally "An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie", and its link is dead.) Tezero ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Also regarding the lead, it ought to briefly summarize the arguments for and against each of the big three. Tezero ( talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now Wikipedia has a low level article.Greetings!Somebody here wrote and acted in a too free way wihtout sufficient sources about Russia and Brazil.Are now all happy?Even the crying russians?Why don't we add Madagascar and Nicaragua too? 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In the article Russia can't be defined current superpower because in Wikipedia the sole current superpower are USA.The content of Russia is really low and not sufficient.No sufficient sources by academics.Brazil same.All rubbish to be deleted. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that after the DISASTER ( so i name this change) all people are disappeared.Russia and Brazil haven' t sufficient sourcies in quality and quantity to stay in the article.I 'm sorry but many people that should check writers have no idea (like some of writers).The rating of "Other contenders" part is 0.I'd delete India too according to main sources.A DISASTER THIS ARTICLE AFTER THE LAST CHANGE.Some historicians of main universities will have time to laugh. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems somebody is is insisting with current...Russia can't be defined so because in the article only USA are defined so.Before the pro russians wanted the finger and now the arm.... Russia like brazile shouldn't neither be there.All rubbish.The part od "Other contenders" is based on very particular opinions not supported by very high academic sourcies but only by old sources (some of them were in the article "Superpower" some years ago).The simple fact that many people criticize this (me too like the majority) by high level sources is more than sufficient (See Antiocus the Great that well set the article). 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My dear russian,current can be used only for USA.You explained nothing.We could add current to China and EU too for istance."Or current " can't be used otherwise it means that Russia could be even now a superpower.We could use the same for EU and China referring to many sourcies.A lot of rubbish today in this article.Greetings. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This the example of a bad article in Wikipedia.I SUGGEST TO RESTORE ALL without "Other contenders" FIRST OF ALL and possibly without India. 151.40.45.125 ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
but for Antiochus the Great and OccultZone they don't want to reply if there is no new update, the only other one is a 2008 source they have, that's it.
Heh, this discussion's almost as long as the article now. Play nice, you two! Tezero ( talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
-- 192.173.144.237 ( talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
By russian fingers this article has fallen really low....why don't they find many academic sources of high level supporting CIS as superpower?Russia is in it and CIS should be a potential superpower.82.... is right.They avoid to look for CIS( Russia even lost its influence on Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia -the last one since longe time:Russia lost its influence in mostly all former USSR allies too) because it hasn't sufficient sources and Russia isn't a potential supepower.If Russia were a potential superpower CIS should be with more reason a potential superpower.But they have nothing of high quality about it. I suggest to add aside Russia and Brazil ("Other contenders") also Turkey and South Africa and others that had sources for name them potential superpowers.I repeat,the best thing is TO RESTORE ALL (possibly without India). It seems that russians are helped a lot having in their hands NOTHING .It seems other people opinions based on strong points (sources and other) are neither considered.Russian crying (many other russians could arrive in this page to support their Russia and to forget Wikipedia standards) for long time works better. 151.40.13.161 ( talk) 05:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So now we see the true faces of writers.Spashibo, i Do svidania!These people have changed the article that must be restored.They used not sufficient sources.But soon the right will be restored in this rubbish article.How many academic sources against Russia in this article do you need?I already posted 3.Do you need more?I saw also the majority is against Russia and brazil in the article.Here there's something shaganigan. 151.40.65.156 ( talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I don't mean to badger you too much, but what do you think of the article's status? Tezero ( talk) 05:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* I don't even care about date and publisher formatting and all that anymore. I just want the article to be stable and the source formatting to not be completely inconsistent. Tezero ( talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)