Talk:The Motherland Calls/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 00:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I will take on this review. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jaguarnik; I very much appreciate it. Looking forward to your review. joeyquism (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written:

Encyclopedic style of writing is maintained throughout the article, lead summarizes all important points of the article.

A few nitpicks:

• infobox says near Mamayev Kurgan, rest of the article indicates it's on Mamayev Kurgan

• Yeah, you're right. Just a bit of an oversight in parameter usage; I've fixed this.

• Despite the scale of the losses in Stalingrad, the battle was quickly mythologised in Soviet culture, why "despite"? I don't think the two oppose each other. Much of the Soviet/Russian narrative of the USSR focuses on the fact that the USSR lost millions of people for the cause against fascism; I don't have access to the original source so I don't know what the author meant to say.

• Removed the first clause. This reads rather strangely to me too after a bit of time away from it.

• Do brick, elevator, plaza, and banner need to be wikilinked? It seems unnecessary (see MOS:OVERLINK - everyday words should not be wikilinked.) Additionally, plaza links to "town square", which I don't think is the intended definition here.

• "Plaza" is synonymous with town square, so that is the appropriate link, in my opinion. The other instances of overlinking are pretty ridiculous to me too, so I've de-linked them.

• a decision that further intensified the already-excessive budget for the project. In my opinion, this sentence doesn't make sense, consider changing "intensified" to "increased"

• Good point. Changed.

• this was later changed to be a concrete statue of a lone Mother Russia - Palmer says on pages 390-392 that this change occurred in 1961, or at the very least, that Vuchetich announced the change in 1961 (although the appearance was finalized in 1962), I would mention this instead of "later".

• Changed to but was changed in 1961 to be a large concrete structure at nearly double the height - let me know if this wording suffices; I'm not exactly on my writing A-game right now, lol.

• The edit works well.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The planned sculpture also attracted criticism from Soviet writers, including Stalin Prize-winning author Viktor Nekrasov, I think it's irrelevant that he's a Stalin Prize-winning author, it wouldn't necessarily make him more of an expert on the subject. Personally, I would remove it, but I don't insist on it.

• Removed.

• the need to ensure the foundation's durability and soil stability, particularly given the presence of mellite clays on Mamayev Kurgan. Could more detail be given on this, for readers who don't have context for why mellite would threaten the soil stability of the foundation?

• Palmer states that This latter issue was particularly important given the high content of mellite clays atop Mamaev Kurgan. The hill's soil could provide a suitable bed for the structure only if its moisture content was kept to a minimum. I've appended the following: ...the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low.

• Rasul Akhiyaretdinov faced criticism from pro-Russian online circles after he petitioned on social media for Vladimir Putin to redesign the statue - again a nitpick, but according to the articles cited, he wasn't asking for Putin to personally redesign the statue, but to give the order to modify it. Additionally, I think it should be mentioned that a criminal investigation was opened against him (as per the article); it wasn't just criticism that he received. (There's also an article from Bloknot Volgograd about the criminal investigation against him.)

• You're right; it does read like he asked Putin specifically to redesign it. I've rephrased it as after he petitioned on social media for Vladimir Putin to order that the statue be redesigned. Do you have the source from Bloknot Volgograd?

• Bloknot Volgograd: Bastrykin gave the order to open the criminal investigation.

• Added A criminal investigation against Akhiyaretdinov was initiated on 10 May 2024 following orders from Alexander Bastrykin.

• due to the visible depiction of the statue's nipples depictions are necessarily visible, no? The phrasing feels redundant.

• Good catch. I've removed "visible".

• In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a video game development company in Belarus was forced to remove the statue from its game after receiving backlash from users on Twitter. "was forced" feels odd here, as there wasn't anything like a government order to remove the statue; that can be removed.

• Changed to just "removed".

Source spotcheck

I don't have access to every single source, so I'll do a spotcheck of sources.

• Palmer, Scott (2009). "How Memory Was Made: The Construction of the Memorial to the Heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad". The Russian Review. 68 (3). Wiley: 373–407.

Citations 4-24; 26-35; 37-40; 45 were checked. I fixed some minor page errors; otherwise, all statements match the source and everything looks good. Y

• Riabov, Oleg; Riabova, Tatiana; Kleshchenko, Liudmila (2022). "'Save the Children!': The Symbol of Childhood and (De)Legitimation of Power in Russian Protests, 2017–21". Region. 11 (2). Slavica Publishers: 235–252.

Y Looks good.

• Sokolova, Evgeniya (5 August 2019). "Пластическая Операция для «Родины-Матери»: Ей Лечат Глаза и Руку" [Plastic Surgery for The Motherland Calls: Healing Her Eyes and Hand]. Е1.ru

Y

• Heintz, Jim (7 May 2020). "AP Photos: Memorials Weave WWII Into Russia's Psyche". Associated Press.

Y

• Serebryakov, Alexei (17 March 2021). "На Мамаевом Кургане «Родина-Мать» Покрылась Трещинами и Мрачными Пятнами" [At Mamayev Kurgan, The Motherland Calls Has Developed Cracks and Dark Stains]. Bloknot Volgograd (in Russian).

Y

• Statsky, Grigori (15 October 2010). ""Родина-Мать» Ушла на «Больничный"" ["Motherland" on "sick leave"]. V1.ru (in Russian).

Y

• Galpin, Richard (8 May 2009). "Russia's massive leaning statue". BBC News.

Y

• Bickerton, James (16 November 2022). "Fact Check: Does Ted Cruz Book Cover Feature Soviet-Era Monument in Russia?". Newsweek.

I'm hesitant about the Newsweek source. Newsweek is considered a questionable source per WP:NEWSWEEK, and while the policy is to judge each Newsweek article on a case-by-case basis, it is a bit questionable to me that no other sources covered the Cruz controversy besides Newsweek. Additionally, I think a few tweets on Twitter isn't really noteworthy criticism. ?

• Fair point, though I personally feel like it can be kept here as it's relevant to the subject matter. If Vacant0 objects, I'll likely just remove it.

I looked briefly at the other news sources, they all look fine to me.

Copyvio

None that I can see. Earwig at the moment of use was unable to use the search engine to look for copyvio. There's no copyvio from the sources used in the page - the highest result was 25.4% from the UNESCO site, but that's just because of the phrase "Battle of Stalingrad". All good here.

Broad

This article is very well-researched. Everything that I think would be relevant was covered, without being too detailed. Background of what led to the conception of the statue, the history of planning and construction, legacy, etc., all is covered and relevant.

Neutral

Y The style of writing is objective and neutral.

Media check

• All media included has relevance to the article, captions are correct.Y

• The infobox image of Motherland Calls has fair use rationale. Y
• 3D model of Motherland Calls has been nominated for deletion on the basis of potential copyright violation; that should be removed. (If the rationale is proven, there's no issue in adding it back.) Ultimately removed.

• What an unfortunate revelation! I've removed this one - the person that nominated it for deletion has claimed that the user who uploaded the file has a history of false licenses, so I'm apprehensive about keeping it at all.

• The Berlin Treptow image has permission. Y
• Winged Victory should be good. The law is "Photography of ancient monuments and antiquities that belong to the Greek State (all dating before 1453 and most dating before 1830 (Law 3028/2002, Government Gazette issue 153/Α/28-6-2002 articles 2 & 7)) is allowed to be taken for free when non-professional equipment is being used but publishing on the internet is allowed for free when no commercial or economical purpose exists." So this should pass. Y
• Image of Vuchetich has fair use rationale. Y
• Image of Motherland Calls under restoration has fair use rationale. Y

• Just a heads-up (and perhaps a bit of self-tattling): this is under a CC-BY-4.0 license. Russian freedom of panorama restrictions do not apply when "the work is an 'accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject'"; I believe that applies here, as it is not a close-up and the statue is represented as a component of the landscape (this is just the way I see it). Additionally, the image was taken by the Russian government according to the existing licensing, which makes it available under CC-BY-4.0.

• Image of the Manzhouli statue should be fine. As far as I can tell, Chinese freedom of panorama laws include statues. Y
• Volgograd coat of arms is not subject to copyright Y
• Volgograd stamp is not subject to copyright Y
• coin is not subject to copyright Y
• postcard is not subject to copyright Y

Overall

I'm really impressed with the article overall, and once the above issues are addressed, I see no reason not to pass it. Since I am still new at reviewing good articles, I will have a more experienced reviewer check this review for me, to make sure that I gave a fair review and addressed all issues. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Will jump in and have a look at the review as a more experienced reviewer. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jaguarnik and Vacant0, thank you so much for taking on this review. I've addressed the comments above; feel free to let me know how I did and if anything else is needed from me. Looking forward to your responses. joeyquism (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Good job on the article. The reviewer has also done a good job on addressing the six criteria. I do not have anything to add, so @Jaguarnik: feel free to promote the article to GA status. If you do not have it installed yet, you can use User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool to close the GA review more easily. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Joeyquism: Congrats on the pass; thanks for bringing a vital article up to GA status. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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.