This discussion was conducted in an unusual manner but with legitimate concerns to open it, and more unearthed in the discussion. Outdated information as well as RECENTISM; a lack of neutrality affected by potential POV editing from different alignments; poor writing; and the matter of it being nominated for GA during a time of controversy (2022 and Russia) and by a user later blocked for sockpuppetry (ban in relation to policy violation and Russia), are all discussed, and all outstanding issues that would need to be addressed to prevent delisting. Another reason this seems to have been opened, but something I do not feel is a matter to be considered in delisting of GAs, is that the article is controversial by nature.
The discussion clearly points to delist.
Kingsif (
talk)
14:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page does not inform about de facto Russian control of Belarus. The only phrase is "Russia maintains close relations with neighbouring Belarus, which is in the Union State, a supranational confederation of the latter with Russia". Russia has attacked Ukraine from Belarus.
Xx236 (
talk)
08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Could you elaborate on the political system issue? The current article calls Russia an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, which doesn't feel like constitutional propaganda.
CMD (
talk)
08:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Xx236: did you choose individual reassessment on purpose? I think a controversial article like this would benefit from (another) community reassessment. Increases the chances of he article being imporoved too.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
07:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
As this is an individual reassessment at the moment (although perhaps you could change it to community reassessment if you want - I have never tried so not sure) it is your decision whether the article remains good or not. So are you able to complete and close this reassessment one way or the other?
Chidgk1 (
talk)
20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
As far as I understand the article does not deserve to be GA. My goal wa to invite corrections. I do not know what to do. I am unable to summarize the discussion. The article has changed since October.
Xx236 (
talk)
12:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No no, we need to make the entire article about Ukraine, war, Putin, authoritarianism, corruption, and the EU's largely symbolic declaration. Someone try doing it fast. Put some more criticism in the lead. Make a separate para for it. Put a billion more tags and get this article deranked already. And even then someone will come and say this is apparently written by Putin himself or something. How long is this process going to continue?
Calesti (
talk)
10:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strange, there are certain editors that complain that the article looks like Russian propaganda without giving specifics and those same editors accuse others of spreading Russian propaganda (paid or not) because it's not an attack page like they want.
Mellk (
talk)
15:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Actualy, it now reads like a mix of PR by US, UA and RU embassies with some quality writing still surviving in it (by omission ?).
So I empatically say that GA status should be removed. Albeit for the opposing reason VM states as his own edits are a big part why it reads more like PR war area than a Good Article. Article which is in the middle of an edit war has no place in the GA category.
83.240.62.117 (
talk)
11:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
To me, the article reads poorly regardless of the neutrality issue brought up here, which is understandable for how long ago it was promoted to GA, back when GA standards were different. To me, a {{citation needed}} tag is unheard of in a GA, yet there's one in the
Biodiversity section. As for the elephant in the room, I think not enough room is given to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine: even though it has
its own article, it's an event important enough to be more than a passing mention, and thus how little attention it has on the page is odd, to say the least.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs)23:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion was conducted in an unusual manner but with legitimate concerns to open it, and more unearthed in the discussion. Outdated information as well as RECENTISM; a lack of neutrality affected by potential POV editing from different alignments; poor writing; and the matter of it being nominated for GA during a time of controversy (2022 and Russia) and by a user later blocked for sockpuppetry (ban in relation to policy violation and Russia), are all discussed, and all outstanding issues that would need to be addressed to prevent delisting. Another reason this seems to have been opened, but something I do not feel is a matter to be considered in delisting of GAs, is that the article is controversial by nature.
The discussion clearly points to delist.
Kingsif (
talk)
14:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page does not inform about de facto Russian control of Belarus. The only phrase is "Russia maintains close relations with neighbouring Belarus, which is in the Union State, a supranational confederation of the latter with Russia". Russia has attacked Ukraine from Belarus.
Xx236 (
talk)
08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Could you elaborate on the political system issue? The current article calls Russia an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, which doesn't feel like constitutional propaganda.
CMD (
talk)
08:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Xx236: did you choose individual reassessment on purpose? I think a controversial article like this would benefit from (another) community reassessment. Increases the chances of he article being imporoved too.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
07:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
As this is an individual reassessment at the moment (although perhaps you could change it to community reassessment if you want - I have never tried so not sure) it is your decision whether the article remains good or not. So are you able to complete and close this reassessment one way or the other?
Chidgk1 (
talk)
20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
As far as I understand the article does not deserve to be GA. My goal wa to invite corrections. I do not know what to do. I am unable to summarize the discussion. The article has changed since October.
Xx236 (
talk)
12:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No no, we need to make the entire article about Ukraine, war, Putin, authoritarianism, corruption, and the EU's largely symbolic declaration. Someone try doing it fast. Put some more criticism in the lead. Make a separate para for it. Put a billion more tags and get this article deranked already. And even then someone will come and say this is apparently written by Putin himself or something. How long is this process going to continue?
Calesti (
talk)
10:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strange, there are certain editors that complain that the article looks like Russian propaganda without giving specifics and those same editors accuse others of spreading Russian propaganda (paid or not) because it's not an attack page like they want.
Mellk (
talk)
15:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Actualy, it now reads like a mix of PR by US, UA and RU embassies with some quality writing still surviving in it (by omission ?).
So I empatically say that GA status should be removed. Albeit for the opposing reason VM states as his own edits are a big part why it reads more like PR war area than a Good Article. Article which is in the middle of an edit war has no place in the GA category.
83.240.62.117 (
talk)
11:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
To me, the article reads poorly regardless of the neutrality issue brought up here, which is understandable for how long ago it was promoted to GA, back when GA standards were different. To me, a {{citation needed}} tag is unheard of in a GA, yet there's one in the
Biodiversity section. As for the elephant in the room, I think not enough room is given to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine: even though it has
its own article, it's an event important enough to be more than a passing mention, and thus how little attention it has on the page is odd, to say the least.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs)23:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.