Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2021 [1].

Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania[edit]

Nominator(s): Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event that happened in retaliation for Lithuania's restoration of independence on 11 March 1990. Basically it was the first escalation of the conflicts between USSR and the rebel republic (or the newly independent republic, depending on the point of view) in the early 1990s; January Events was the second. The article passed the Good article review in July, and has since undergone an enormous expansion (14K -> 75K). The article went through peer review, whose advice has been reflected in article changes, but unfortunately the FA mentor essentially decided not to take up the article - I've implemented his suggestions but I wasn't able to address other issues that apparently exist because these were not outlined, and I don't see any that can't be dealt with in this prep area, so to say. In any case, your comments are welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose from Kavyansh[edit]

Is fixed image size in the infobox required?
The lead says that the blockade lasted from "18 April and 2 July 1990", the infobox says "18 April 1990 – 30 June/2 July 1990". The dates differ, even the date format differs.
"Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union, embarked on a course of liberaliszation of the political system of the Soviet Union." — is there a way to avoid the repetition of "Soviet Union"
Is there a MOS as to what will be used: "Soviet Union" or "USSR"? Isn't using both of them together inconsistent? I'm not sure, though.
"the blockade started on 18 April 1990" — Why is the year specifically mentioned here, when it wan't mentioned in the immediately previous sentence.
"as Western countries" — countries should be piped inside the link
"exceeded 500 million rubles, or 1.5% of GNP" — can we use Template:inflation? Is there a link for GNP? Also, "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression"
The lead is indeed long for an article of this length.
Multiple terms like: "Soviet Union", "Mikhail Gorbachev", "Sąjūdis", "Algirdas Brazauskas", "Communist Party of Lithuania", "Klaipėda", "George H. W. Bush", "Prime Minister of Lithuania", "Nikolai Ryzhkov", "rubles", "Poland", "US Senators" are linked multiple times in the prose. (MOS:DUPLINK)
From the quick glace, there are various inconsistencies in the prose. For instance: "United States" v. "US Senators"; rubles is linked in the prose, but not on its first instance. Neither is it linked in the lead; in few places, MOS:JOBTITLES is not implemented.
Few references have titles in all-caps, which is discouraged.
Suggesting to hyphenate the ISBNs, using this tool.
Inconsistency in linking the work/media agency/website. For instance: The Gorbachev Foundation, Seimas of Lithuania, etc are linked. While, Albert Einstein Institution, The New York Times, etc are not.
Washington Post should be The Washington Post; Baltimore Sun should be The Baltimore Sun; "Washington DC" should be "Washington, D.C."
Inconsistency is listing the locations for sources. For instance: "Boston, MA" has state mentioned in abbreviation, while "Los Angeles, California" does not. We have "Washington" linked to Washington, D.C., when it could be confused for Washington (state).
Few sources like Ref#42, 44 need title to be translated in English.

I have not even read the prose. Have just read the lead, and taken a quick look at the over-linking, the overall structure, and drive-by source formatting. I do not want to discourage you, but sadly, the article requires much work to meet FA status. I am leaning oppose for now, but feel free to ping me to take another look whenever you want. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I took a look at the prose and it looks like the article could use a thorough copyedit. Few examples of prose issues from just one paragraph of the article:

"little educational and economical opportunities in the area"
"mandated the use of Lithuanian ~~without taking account of the minorities~~" by definition
"On 15 May 1990, the Šalcininkai (Soleczniki) district council, intent to create a Polish autonomy, voted to only recognise Soviet laws and the Soviet Constitution and to disregard the independence declaration"

There are sourcing issues. What makes gazeta.ru , russiantheory.ru , RIA Novosti high-quality RS? Why cite the Lithuanian parliament for historical assertions like "The Soviets were unimpressed, and on 18 April, at 21:25 (EEST), the Kremlin launched the blockade by stopping supplies to the Mažeikiai oil refinery"? Overall, the sourcing definitely needs a very thorough check. I would suggest withdrawing and getting a thorough copyedit of the article and ensuring all sources cited are high-quality reliable ones before nominating again. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - closing, based on comments above that this needs further work. Would recommend finding another FA mentor and give this one a thorough working-through before renominating. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.