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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:49, 11 November 2010 [1].

---

Kengir uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Kengir uprising

• Featured article review/Kengir uprising/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Clngre, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Politics

This article was promoted in 2006 and has not been reviewed since. My main concern that the article has 1c issues, including unsourced statements and paragraphs like "The women's camp was blocked off both from access and sight to the mens' camp." in the section The camp compound and "ordered the withdrawal of all guards from the compound." in the section Seizing of the camp is unreferenced. JJ98 (Talk) 06:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues of concern: Single sourcing, absence of high quality reliable sourcing, reliance on a low quality or unreliable source. Solzhenitsyn is quite simply not reliable for this. His work is admitted by the author to be as much literary criticism of an oral tradition, and, the recording of circulating rumour. While Solzhenitsyn may provide an adequate PRIMARY source for historians, wikipedia is not a historian. Article should rely upon secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Curiously, the article does not even mention works by Marta Craveri and Nikolay Formozov, the principal researcher of Kengir events. East of Borschov 10:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solzhenitsyn's work has too many neutrality and reliability issues (political motive, little independent verification etc.) to meet the criteria of WP:RS. There may also be 1d issues throughout. "Sowing discord" is emotive language and should not be used as a heading, and sentences such as "to provide an ostensible justification for the massive armed intervention to begin with" do not seem neutral. The article does not really present the subject in a neutral manner, and this, as well as the poor sourcing, is a serious problem with the article. Jan 1922 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article criterion of concern are citations, reliable sourcing, neturality YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist as nominator. I see little improvements to the article, but I don't see any concerns addressing above. JJ98 (Talk) 00:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist though happy to revisit if pinged if the 1c issues are resolved. I enjoy the promulgation of excellent quality discussions of revolt and collective anti-Soviet behaviour, particularly ones which make communist arguments, such as workers control. This article is not, however, an excellent quality discussion due to sourcing issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Uneutral....... --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, agree with concerns that Jj98 (talk · contribs) has raised, above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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