Wikipedia:Featured article review/National emblem of Belarus/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [1].

National emblem of Belarus

Notified:
Cukrakalnis, Zscout370, Nieszczarda2, Pofka, Valentinian, Mzajac, Cordyceps-Zombie, WP Belarus, WP Heraldry andvexillology, noticed over a year ago

Review section

This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:

  • The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
  • The whole sentence "According to the formerly popular historian Arnold J. Toynbee, the pagan Lithuanians performed sweeping conquests of the Orthodox Ruthenians and this medieval greatness of Lithuania was conveyed in its heraldic emblem – a galloping horseman." is problematic (why Toynbee is the source here when there are thousands more reliable and recent sources to qoute? Toynbee wasn't an expert on Belarusian or Lithuanian heraldry)
  • ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian". That's very close to hoax
  • Lithuanian mythologists presented as a reliable source of information (why they are even quoted here?)

The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Encyclopedia Britannica (possibly the most reliable information source in the entire world), no distinctive Belarusian national symbols were developed until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article). Also, Belarus had no statehood traditions until the 20th century and only in 1918 they created their first sovereignty (see: Britannica's article). Encyclopedia Britannica is the cornerstone of this article. That being said, I see no significant issues regarding Belarus' national symbols, but the "20th century" and "As a state symbol in the Republic of Belarus" sections certainly requires expansion with more details. I have strong doubts about this article's status as FP in 2022 because it certainly is not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia, thus I support its denomination from a FP status. -- Pofka (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The Belarus-related articles in Britannica have not had major updates since being transferred online. So much has happened in scholarship since then. They are of a substandart quality nowadays. In addition, the articles on Belarus and the flag of Belarus do not deal with Pahonia directly anyway. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is factually correct and ensures
WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is undoubtedly written in NPOV and it is trustworthy. These are the most important things. Britannica's article about Belarus was last updated on March 2, 2022, so it is certainly not outdated. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and suggest the POV template placed. The Pahonia part of the article does not meet several WP:FA criteria.

It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should have been a demotion of the article National emblem of Belarus from Featured-class to something lower already a long time ago, owing to the article's shortcomings.
Regarding what
talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Move to FARC. Cukrakalnis (Who says the article should be demoted) made one edit; there has been no other improvement, and the article still contains large amounts of uncited text, along with what now appears to be an NPOV dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC I haven't read the above, except for HF's original statement. However, I see that minimal edits have been made to the article in the past few months, and uncited statements, paragraphs, and sections remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced sections, paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It is clearly not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, work is needed. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no progress to fix concerns since it's move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/National_emblem_of_Belarus/archive1&oldid=1083091831"