Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mezhyhirya Monastery/1

Mezhyhirya Monastery

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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No indication the article will be improved further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article status no longer seems justified, if it ever was. The article systemically suffers from WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED claims and claims made by non-WP:RS, failing WP:GACR no. #2. This has been the situation since January 2008, when it was promoted. The DYK with which this article made the Main Page on 1 January 2008 (10 days before achieving GA status), Talk:Mezhyhirya Monastery#Did you know, turns out to be a disproven speculation, a busted myth. This was already known to the DYK nominator, who cited the 17 September 2007 sovremennik.ws post by TatianaZ admitting that excavations in the 1990s never found any library or manuscripts. It's also unclear who believed this (MOS:WEASEL), and why it matters if it has been disproven, or why we should take seriously the hope that one day it might still be proven (TatianaZ saying 'What if [the library of Yaroslav the Wise] is really hidden in one of the dungeons, and is just waiting for the moment when it is finally removed from almost 800 years of imprisonment?' is clearly WP:CRYSTAL). Its entire claim to fame appears to be based on a refuted assumption.

The remainder of sources cited is often still questionable, ranging from newspapers or news sites which do not have the proper scholarly expertise to be making claims about what happened centuries ago, to blog posts, to museums speculating about Andrey's role, to the OKO architectural website (one of the more reliable and neutral sources, but also hardly scholarly). A 19th-century bishop can claim galore, but is not a reliable source. People want to believe lots of things about this former building, and seem to prioritise confirmation bias over reliable sources. But this is Wikipedia.

I've already removed a lot of rubbish, especially stuff related to the Mezhyhirya Residence and the WP:COATRACK on Andrey Bogolyubsky / Virgin of Vladimir, which would probably have made it fail WP:GACR no. #3, and possibly no. #4 due to the heavy focus on the political controversy of Yanukovych owning the Residence. But there is still a lot to do. In terms of being well-written and neutral (no. #1 and no. #4), the article should stop basking in "mysteries" and being allegedly "destroyed" many times, yet rebuilt every time, as if that must mean it is somehow a supernatural miracle that should be attributed to the building's religious status. I'm sure that such speculation appeals to a rather narrow audience of devout Eastern Orthodox Christians, but not "to an appropriately broad audience", and may well be WP:POV.

I think the article does not immediately WP:GAFAIL, but it needs serious work to keep its status. I've already done what I can, but I believe other editors should take a look as well. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the first time I've initiated a GAR, I hope I've done it appropriately. The tone of my rationale may be somewhat negative, due to frustrations encountered while trying to improve the article, but I think all editors involved have made an honest effort to write an interesting article. It passed the GA criteria all those years ago, but the criteria seem to have gotten stricter as Wikipedia has professionalised its standards and practices over the years. There is still a possibility that with some serious improvements it can keep its GA status. I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale being negative hits the spot on the mark.. I think it is accurate to state that the GA criteria is updated every now and then and has become stricter. If anyone is up to the task of updating original sources and content, that would be most welcome!

However, it is important to note that the history behind the monastery and the exact facts referenced in the article with the original sources provided will not become more available as time goes on. If anything, it will become more difficult to find such sources, since history in Ukraine is constantly being erased due to war, destruction, and constant conquest. Don't ask me - just look at the history (and present-day) itself!

I admit, this article was written a long time ago - and there may have been archaeological expeditions and new books that have come out to date that will become most useful in expanding this article with regards to the monastery itself. I'd like to say that there is more information out there that we can reflect in this article, but I could be mistaken.

BTW, props to removing the paragraphs about the Mezhyhirya Residence - to my knowledge, that Wiki article was not around at the time of this article's writing. § DDima 02:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DDima Thank you for responding. I think my criticism may have been a bit too harsh, sorry about that. You're right that most text about the Mezhyhirya Residence was added only after you published the article, although you did mention at the end that there was a controversy about it. What seems to have happened is that, as the scandal unfolded over the course of 2008 and onwards, other Wikipedians added more and more off-topic information to it. Finally in December 2013 a separate article about the Residence was written, and text about the Residence in this article hadn't yet been transferred to that separate article yet. I can't blame you for that.

I should also clarify that indeed, in this time of war and destruction inside Ukraine, there are risks of sources and artefacts being lost or looted, as has unfortunately happened to several museums and heritage sites in occupied or frontline areas. It's important to cherish and protect what there still is, and documenting this on Wikipedia is one way to do it. I've been doing that myself, mostly in the area of (hand)written documents rather than architecture. It is, in fact, because I was planning to translate Mezhyhirya Chronicle from ukwiki to enwiki (which I have now completed), that I ran into this article about the Mezhyhirya Monastery, and saw a lot of problems with it.

If I could be of help in improving it, I would gladly do so. (I think the Cossack period should be its focus, and not speculations about its legendary founding during Kievan Rus'). Unfortunately, I can find only 2 English-language books on Google Books about it, both of which say very little. Google Scholar also has very few results in English. I'm slowly learning Ukrainian, but I can't really read a PDF article yet (because translation machines like DeepL or Google Translate can't help me read it), like I Antchyshkin, Запорізька Січ та грамота патріарха Йоакима (2015). Науковий щорічник «Історія релігій в Україні». So I'm afraid I won't be much help content-wise. This is one of the reasons why I said I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. I'm pretty sure there are enough reliable sources in Ukrainian to improve this article, so that it is worthy of keeping its GA status. But for that, we will need Wikipedians who can read advanced Ukrainian, and I cannot do that myself. But I could aid in improving the style, grammar, structure etc. So perhaps we could work together, or ask others to assist? Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw and DDima: do either of you intend to continue improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the foreseeable future. As I said above, I think I have done enough already, and that it is up to others to give their reassessment of the article, and make some improvements where needed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think the obscurity of the topic means that the chances of others improving the article is very low, so if DDima does not intend to improve the article, it will likely be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2024 (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.