Back

Talk:Ukrainian Sheriffs

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ukrainian Sheriffs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 16:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose comments:

[edit]
  • Bribes were required to gain employment or promotion, for many police interactions*, and theft of property from crime scenes was common. There is a hidden comment in this line. Did you mean to include that?
    • The commented passage from traffic stops to reports for insurance claims elucidates it a bit if 'police interactions' is too vague. I'm still undecided about including it. What do you think?
  • land theft Could this be explained? Is this a property dispute or an issue of stolen resources?
    • My understanding would be that it was a swindle or abuse of power. The source says of Mayor Viktor Marunyak: Кілька років тому він намагався перешкодити розкраданню земель у селі, і його арештували. which Google translates as A few years ago, he tried to prevent land grabbing in the village and was arrested. or Several years ago, he tried to prevent land theft in the village, and he was arrested. Being a backwoods village, with young people leaving in search of work, a fair number of properties are left vacant and I suspect there was some opportunistic attempt by outsiders to seize ownership through questionable means. During the film, the village council seems to be holding abandoned properties in trust, as in the case of the property of Kolya's deceased brother which is held for a year before being officially transferred to Kolya.
      • Since an English-speaking audience would not have an understanding of the context, would a term such as land dispute be better? While the term is more vague, the reader would have a better understanding of the issue at hand as 'land theft' could mean multiple things.
        • Changed to "had taken action regarding a land dispute".
  • was arrested without evidence. Was he arrested due to his investigation? If he was, that is not clear. It would pay off to mention he was arrested by the militsiya
    • The source doesn't give any details on the charges. The best I can do is to summarize the facts presented and let the reader draw their own conclusions. (My guess is that whoever was trying to seize the properties had already bribed the militsiya, but the militsiya couldn't let it become too much of a scandal and were forced to release him.) It was earlier stated that the militsiya was the only law enforcement organization in the country, so I felt that was evident.
      • For a GA article, I must object to the logic that the reader should draw their own conclusions. The point of an enclopedic article is to be clear, not be vague enough were every reader would have their own interpetations of a rather cut-and-dry development. The section should also have a few more details to be complete - why was he arrested? Why did the militsiya(?) object to his investigation?
        • I can understand your personal objection. This sounds like a content/broadness issue more than a clarity/prose issue. The sources I have don't answer the questions you pose. I tried searching again but only found his 21 March 2022 arrest by Russian occupying authorities. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • sheriffs program Is this a proper noun? The sentence structure makes it seem like one
    • No, not a proper noun. I've changed this to: Marunyak conceived the idea of village sheriffs. The formalized (proper noun) Sheriffs Program came later through the Interior Ministry.
  • Sheriff Volodymyr Rudkovsky flinches from wood chips as he chops kindling for a small wood stove. I don't see this detail being relevant
  • Without their coffee, Nothing else mentioned coffee?
  • yellow 1973 Lada sedan Again, is this detail needed? Being specific would make sense if the car's appearance is important. but it does not appear to be that way
  • but Kryvoborodko opens the window to finish his cigarette and the car's Ukrainian flag flies away. Ditto, detail
    • Discussing the above four points as the opening scene.
    • I should probably say something about the structure of the film itself. It's a documentary and it's somewhat episodic like a series of vignettes. The events take place over more than a year, so there are jumps and changes of season. There's no single story, no climax, and the conclusion was tacked-on. Rather than a conventional story, there are disconnected scenes with themes that emerge.
      • Okay, this needs to be in the article. Since the article mentions a run-time of 88 minutes, I assumed that it was a feature-length movie. Since this is a unique detail, it should be mentioned in the article
        • It is mentioned in Production. (An earlier version of the article also had something on it in the Synopsis but that was cut for space.) Would you like to see it somewhere else?
    • I focused on the more important scenes, the ones which were most often referenced by sources. I tried to summarize what was presented in the film without commentary or interpretation, and mindful of BLP since these are real people.
    • The opening scene establishes the tragicomic film. To summarize it in a less formal, more verbose manner: They don't have modern conveniences and have to use a wood stove for their morning coffee, but they don't even have decent firewood. One sheriff chops kindling so it will burn faster, but he flinches away from wood chips, making it increasingly likely that he's going to injure his hand with the axe. He finally gets the wood together and puts on the coffee, but it's all for nothing as they receive a vague call about a threatening incident. Abandoning the coffee, they get into a tiny 40-year-old Soviet-era car, distinguishable as an official vehicle only by a cheap little flag clipped over the window. After a bit of effort at starting it up, they drive down the bumpy dirt road. The sheriff in the passenger seat opens the window to smoke and the flag flies away. They're complete underdogs, with no resources and bad luck – but I can't say that.So I tried to describe what is shown. Do you have any suggestions for a better way to write it up?
      • Thank you for this detailed explanation! I see what you mean. Obviously, it would be best if a source mentions the symbolism directly. However, we can work with this. Since the car was described as being a yellow 1973 Lada, I assumed the make, model, and color was the important take away and would be relevant later in the plot(ie. an unrelated yellow Lada is wanted for a crime, and the two Sherrifs are investigated). If the main take away is to show how under-resourced the Sherrifs are, then the car can be described as, a 40-year old decrepit Lada as this wording emphasizes the age and condition of the car. Do you see what I mean? Similarly, we can do the same for the coffee. Mention that one sheriff chops wood to heat his coffee, then mention the coffee is abandoned, leaving the entire exercise pointless.
        • Great ideas! Okay, I'll see about putting that in without pushing the wordcount.
  • They visit an elderly landlord who had sheltered a homeless man over the winter but the man later demanded money to leave the village. The wording seems off to me as it is not chronological and breaks up ideas. Perhaps something such as: Upon arrival, the duo find an elderly landlord who had sheltered a homeless man over the winter. The man demanded money to leave the village etc. There should be a few more details for this to make sense. Did the landlady refuse to provide the money?
    • This scene may be taking place weeks after the opening scene (I omitted a scene regarding the man with an axe). Yes, the landlord refused to pay. I tried rewriting, but again, trying to keep the wordcount down. BTW: do you think the narrative should be be in present tense or past tense? Since these are things which actually happened, normally it should be past tense. But the present tense feels more natural.
    • Don't worry about the wordcount, just focus on clerity. A long yet clear paragraph would always be better than a confusing sentence. Also, this segment still needs copyediting. Regarding the tense, I checked a few GA documentaries here, and it seems everything should be in past tense as these events already occured, much like any history-related article. Do you agree?
      • I agree (I try to follow MOS), but I'm having trouble phrasing the changes; it feels terribly awkward. I looked at the synopses for the 9 FAs on documentary films: 1, 3, 5 (when discussing on-screen events), 6, 9 use present tense; 2, 4 use a mix; 7, 8 use a mix with dates to clearly set them as historical. I'm going to attempt this third approach.
  • Sherrifs Should the S be upercase or undercase? The article is inconsistent
    • Sorry about that. I went over them and kept the capitalization only when the title is directly applied to a name, as part of the ministry's Sheriffs Program, or in the title of the film itself.
  • new neighbour include being could be written as, complaints include accusations that her neighbor is...
    • rephrased.
  • man with a paratrooper tattoo What does this add to the plot?
    • The watchtower is shown on the film poster and frequently depicted toward the latter half of the film. The man is shown but not identified. The military tattoo suggests he is a veteran.
      • But does it? The detail would make sense if a refrence discusses the symbolism of the film and the point is exapnded on, but the tattoo is just mentioned and not brought up again. If the tattoo is not relevant to the plot, I don't see the point in having it mentioned (ie. the tattoo reveals the identity of the person).
        • removed.
  • apparent violence Violence does occur when someone is killed, yes. Did you mean foul play or homicide?
    • Good point. Fixed.
  • Featured cast Are these about the actors or the real people shown in the show? Can that be clarified?
    • You're right, they're real people not actors. I guess Featured subjects. Does that sound right?
      • It might pay off if this segment follows Bondarchuk stated that the villagers initially avoided the cameras but later competed for the film crew's attention as it would be established that no one in the movie are actors. To me, Featured subjects seems to show the identity of the real people characters were based off of, and not the non-actor subjects who appeared in the film. Does this make sense?
  • Euromaidan For internal consistancy, should it be Euromaidan or Maidan?
    • I think I used whatever that particular source was using, but yes, for consistency (and checking the Wikipedia naming conventions) the Euromaidan were the protests which lead to the Maidan Revolution. Switched all to Maidan.
  • I am unable to view most of the sources on grounds of library/language limitations, but ref 1 links to a live German TV guide and ref 17 is dead
    • Okay, I changed |url-status=dead for both references; the Internet Archive URLs are still good.
  • Overall, copyediting is required for clerity, adding wikilinks to proper terms, and the addition of punctuation to indicate shifts of ideas, removal of unneeded detail, and the addition of detail to make casue and effect more understandable. Also, comments should go before quotes. I do not mean to be rude, but this reads like a translation from another language due to the clunky text I point out. Can someone else have a pass at the article to root out these issues?
    • I've gone over it for clarity. I didn't spot any missing wikilinks. (There are about 60 links in the body.)
    • If there is clear cause and effect, we can summarize that. But if there is not clear cause and effect, we shouldn't invent such as a matter of personal opinion. I'm fine with presenting what is shown and letting the reader draw their own conclusions.
      • Again, a GA article should not be vague and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Looking at the GA documentary articles I linked previously, all of them discuss the film in a matter-of-fact style that mentions the most relevant plot points along with background without leaving the reader to piece together cause and effect or overall meaning. Since this film has little refrences regarding interpetation, the open-endedness of the article makes it a poor enclopedia article.
    • The quotations without leading commas include a nickname Mykola "Kolya" Yanovskyy and in the second paragraph of Themes and also in Reception passages like Anna Yakutenko wrote for Kyiv Post that the film portrays rural lives "in a semi-comic way [yet] sincere and heartwarming" but felt that it did not go far enough into examining attitudes toward the war and that the ending was too abrupt.. That one is a bit of a run-on sentence and could maybe use some separation before but. However, I believe these are generally okay per the quotation examples at MOS:QUOTEPOV and MOS:CONFORM.
  • Regarding detail: Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary may be helpful!
    • I don't normally reply before the review is placed onhold, but wanted to know: are you holding the review pending copyedit of the article? Personally, I would rather attempt to address the points you raise as part of the review rather than launching another review process (ie: copyedit request). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have made this point more clear. I pointed out the most obvious prose/grammer issues so those issues can be put to bed as I check off the other GA boxes GGOTCC 16:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reidgreg Would you like me to place the review onhold before you make the changes? GGOTCC 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GGOTCC: That sounds like a good idea. I wasn't sure it was time for me to make edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to wait for me! Just ping me whenever you want me to take a 2nd look GGOTCC 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GGOTCC: Okay, I went through it, took a day to clear my head and then went through it again. I admit that the synopsis section for this article was challenging for me to write, because of the BLP issues, language issues, the unusual form, and trying to keep the wordcount down. Maybe you could take a look at the rest of the article and then come back to the plot? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reidgreg Appologies for the lack of action here. I have not forgoten, but I am in the middle of finals season and would need some time to do the review in one take. I'll have this done by Sunday GGOTCC 19:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reidgreg I responded to the most pressing points, although grammer is still an issue in some places. Right now, I am leaning to reject the article as a GA due to your admittance that it is vague and 'lets the reader draw their own conclusions.' While the issue is not specifically disallowed in WP:Summery Style, an enclopedic article needs to be clear first and foremost. Every reader should not have a diffrent takeaway from the same article. I am willing to work with you on that, but this topic needs refrences that analysizes the symbolism for details to make sense. GGOTCC 00:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the whole vagueness thing, I feel that it's more of a content issue than a prose issue. Taking the example of Marunyak's pre-film arrest, you noted that it would be better to include more specific details. However, my sources don't have such information. The way I learned to write articles was to follow WP:SYNTH – if one source says Statement A and another source says Statement B, you should not combine those to create Statement C (which would be original research); instead, we should present Statement A and B and leave it to the reader's judgement whether or not Statement C is an obvious (but unstated) conclusion. If what's written itself is understandable, then that's clear prose. If you feel it's unclear because something's missing, then that's broadness. The GA criteria for broadness is to address the main aspects of the subject as reported by reliable sources (not as "comprehensive" as FA). My thinking is that if readily available reliable sources do not cover the missing information, then it isn't a main aspect of the subject.

If more sources can be found, I'd be happy to go through them and expand the article. But I haven't found anything new other than the sources about Marunyak from 2022. I think the article is definitely better thanks to your advice, and I'm sorry it wasn't as polished as I thought it had been when I nominated it. If you're going to 'not pass' this GAN, I'm fine with that so long as you make it clear where you feel it does not meet the GA criteria, so that I can address that before re-nominating. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg Thank you, you are right that these issues fall more under broadness and prose. I was just having a hard time identifying a specific clause in the GA requirments that the article trips up in. While your approach to WP:SYNTH is correct, the topic itself may not be GA material if reliable sources leave some ideas up in the air. While the broadness is defined as summery style, I consider it to also adress all major ideas of the topic without leaving the reader confused - which this article fails at due to a lack of clerity in sources. Leaving it up to the reader to draw a connection is an issue as everyone would interpet the prose in diffrent ways, even if an obvious fact is hinted at but not directly stated. In my eyes, my point is most obvious in the line Staraya Zburivka village council chairman (mayor) Viktor Marunyak had taken action regarding a land dispute in the village and was arrested without evidence. The last paragraph introduces the militsiya and mentions that it is the sole law-enforcement organization in Ukraine, but they don't often travel to towns such as Staraya Zburivka. The next sentence about Marunyak follows, directly contradicting that fact. The sentence itself is a bit confusing - I guess(?) he was arrested by the militsiya, but the article just stated that the militsiya does not like traveling to these small villages. Was this an exception? Also, why was he arrested? What does his arrest have to do with his investigation? The rest of the segment is okay, and I like how the infromation about the villager's protests translate to the creation of the sherriff program. If sources do not have enough details to make an article make sense, then the paragraph may need to be restructured, such as After the village council chairman was arrested without evidence, villagers were outraged and was able to have him released... This rewording puts less emphasis on his arrest and focuses on the reaction, which is the most important part of the section. While broadness is an issue, I believe it can be addressed with word smithing that focuses on only the most important (and thus fully explained) ideas. Like I said before, theses issues are common throughout the article with specific details mentioned but are not explained or sentences that are in need of more detail to make sense/connect two ideas.
I do not want to fail the article right now, and am still willing to work with you. Perhaps we could get someone more familiar with film-related GA articles to judge if the broadness is an issue or now. If I am being too strict with GA requirments, then I will drop my objections. Also, would it be possible to add detail about the nature of the film? You said it was split into episodes and lacked a specific plot, but the article mentions it was a full length film. GGOTCC 19:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: Yes, the militsiya coming to Staraya Zburivka to arrest Marunyak was an exception. I do not have any RSS which provide information on the charges or investigation. I've relegated some of that to a footnote to simplify that passage.
The episodic nature is mentioned in Production and also Reception (Hollywood Reporter review).
I believe that the standard way for a reviewer to ask for a second opinion is to edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page and change |status=2ndopinion – after summarizing the specifics of what you want a second opinion for here. See WP:GAN/I#2O. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg Are you open to a second opinion? GGOTCC 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome a second opinion, but it's up to you. Requesting a second opinion on the GA nom template is to provide you with advice in reviewing. As the nominator, the way I would get a second opinion would be to renominate on a failed review. Of course, anyone is free to jump in here and offer advice to either of us. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC. @Reidgreg, hi both! was reading through this ga review upon seeing the second opinion request. i'm still a little confused as to what exactly the reviewer is asking for here. i'm also confused why there's so many references in the synopsis. sometimes it's necessary to refer to secondary sources for analysis that the film itself does not make clear, but for events seen in the documentary no secondary sourcing is needed. isn't general practice also to put the synopsis above the featured subjects?
regarding the highlighted sentence above, this i agree is contradictory. did the sentence reading "The militsiya generally did not come to outlying villages like Staraya Zburivka due to difficulty getting there." relate to information found in the film? if so is it important to summarise? if the answer to both questions is yes, then i would like to know the reason why, otherwise i'd just excise it.--Plifal (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: Thanks for your comments. I checked the 9 FAs on documentaries, and only 2 of them have a Casting/Contributors section (in both cases, it is placed placed after Synopsis). In this article, the Featured subjects section was initially placed before the Synopsis but was changed as GGOTCC felt this would clarify that they are real people in a documentary and not actors in a recreation or docudrama.
The citations in the Synopsis section are from before that change; some may be redundant now but I didn't think there was any sense in removing citations while the layout was in flux (and excessive citations don't seem to fit under the GA criteria). Documentaries do tend to have more citations in their synopses compared to fiction. Some are for BLP reasons, such as stating that Kolya is a petty criminal and that he is convicted for bicycle theft. I made an effort to cite accusations. The car make and year is not obvious to the average viewer without specialized knowledge, so there's a citation for that. One of the picture captions has a citation because it provides non-obvious information for context.
The militsiya not coming to the village is important because that means the village is left to itself for policing, which is why the villagers appointed sheriffs. That's the premise of the film, so I'd say it's important. I don't really see the confusion/contradiction, but with two editors telling me so I must concede the point. The situation is: The militsiya rarely come to the village, at least not without a bribe. When they do come, instead of helping, they arbitrarily arrest the village's mayor. It's tragically absurd. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi! thank you, and understoood. i'll think about this and get back to you later, but is this the only major point of contention? or is there another reason a second opinion was asked for? best wishes--Plifal (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal To me, the issue is that significant context needs to be added to the synopsis to make sense. A strightfoward plot summery would not really work as the political background and social aspects need to be first introduced and cited. An example of this is regards the Sheriff Program: while the film never addresses Ukranian liberalization, the article does so the reader understands why the sheriffs do what they do and why their work is important. However, a disconnect immerges as sources fail to explain the symbolism/meaning/background of many scenes in the film. While the article tries to address these scenes by describing the events, the prose comes off as seemingly random and unneeded as the information is not further explained or expanded upon. As Reidgreg elegantly explained above, several scenes show people chopping wood as they have no other methods of warming themselves. These details are mentioned in the article, but neither the film nor sources explain why people were relient on burning wood. Reidgreg mentioned that the reader should be able to interpet, "chopping wood = poverty/underdevelopment", but I object to their logic as that explanation should be directly stated for the reader to fully understand.
The entire article has similar issues, with seemingly random details mentioned due to symbolism/deeper meaning percieved by Reidgreg but no sources, and thus no prose, making the connection. I requested for a second pair of eyes to dermine if I am reading things to closley, or if these issues are a fundamental broadness issue. GGOTCC 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC, @Reidgreg, hi! here are my suggestions. it's not our place as editors to state what's apparently obvious in wikivoice unless it's sourced, as such i think the implication here is fine. i may encourage some trunkating of the material though as, e.g. the first paragraph of the 'synopsis' section feels too casual. placing undue emphasis on details in the scenes would be problematic. i can't access the film readily, but it sounds as though the structure is quite complex, jumping around between timelines, which is not something that was clear to me while reading the article. if this is the case i might encourage instead to break the 'synopsis' section up into paragraphs that deal with the film thematically, with a sourced note at the beginning explaining the structure. generally i could follow what was being said.
regarding: "The militsiya generally did not come to outlying villages like Staraya Zburivka due to difficulty getting there. Staraya Zburivka village council chairman (mayor) Viktor Marunyak was arrested without evidence and village residents rallied to defend him and secure his release." i might suggest smashing the sentences together to read something like, "Generally the militsiya did not come to outlying villages like Staraya Zburivka, but/so/regardless when Staraya Zburivka village council chairman (mayor) Viktor Marunyak was arrested without evidence, the village residents rallied to defend him and secure his release." or otherwise get it to read more like the militsiya are the cause of his arrest. since both sentences are sourced from the same citation, it shouldn't be an issue; although re-reading my suggestion the meaning could potentially be interpreted incorrectly.
hope this helps, feel free to request clarification or otherwise ignore this advice, but i think this is for the most part fine pending a few revisions.--Plifal (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search