Talk:Russia/GA4

GA Reassessment

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 Outdated information as well as RECENTISM; a lack of neutrality affected by potential POV editing from different alignments; poor writing; and the matter of it being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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The neutrality of this article is disputed since September.

There are basic controversies regarding the infobox and map.

Some parts of the text are obsolete.

The text copies Russian constitutional propaganda rather than to describe the real political system.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I have quoted sources regarding 'defederalisation'. There has been a long series of decisons.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Government and politics' quote the constitution and only the last sentence describes 'backsliding'. The Medvedev–Putin tandemocracy is not linked. Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has strict censorship system, here described using 5 words as "censorship of media and internet",Internet censorship in Russia not linked. Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/europe/russia-censorship-media-crackdown.html https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/censorship-and-self-censorship-russia "The Russian constitution has an article expressly prohibiting censorship" Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of journalists should be probably included, see List of journalists killed in Russia.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Literature and philosophy' since 1991 does not exist here, similarly 'Art and architecture'.Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Education' https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220331145221667 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/russia-educators-fired-students-indoctrinated-academia-is-the-latest-victim-of-the-ongoing-crackdown/ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/russias-limits-critical-thinking-are-hitting-its-academic-performance Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian world is more or less a state ideology, not mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link/quote some secondary sources to provide the relative prominence of these various topics? CMD (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stuntneare removed the POV tag with Special:Diff/1114484210. — Clyde ^{State your case} (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 22:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC) And it has been readded. Clyde Franklin wishes you a happy Thanksgiving! 22:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236 I hope you are well - are you able to complete this reassessment? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 26 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]

I only know that the article is controversial and noone wants to contribute. Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 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]

There is no mention in this review of the WP:GACR. CMD (talk) 01:42, 22 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]

This might have been a GA at one point. But now it reads like a PR piece issued by the Russian embassy. Volunteer Marek 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate more. Reading the article the country does not look good. Not sure prove a point tagging will help. Moxy-

13:11, 24 November 2022 (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]

Comment: it was brought to my attention that the person who nominated the article for GA (in 2022, so later than I thought) was blocked for being a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source added as per your request. The article now contains 2 paragraphs about current events. Moxy-

15:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, this GAR has been open for over three months. Please make the choice to keep or delist the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (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.