The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Protests in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), March 1917.

• ... that the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, named after the month February, actually took place during the month of March? Source: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-february-revolution
  • Comment: I nominated Russia to GA status, and since the nomination passed, thought this would a nice fact. Since the revolution is widely known as the February Revolution, many, and arguably most people think it took place during February - although it took place in March.

Improved to Good Article status by Mspriz (talk). Self-nominated at 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - AGF
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - AGF

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - x

QPQ: - not needed
Overall: Mspriz Welcome to DYK and thank you for your remarkable work in bringing Russia to GA status. The article sure has some info for the DYK section but DYK has some other rules than GA and we should take our time. Further comments below.

• I'll review this one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article is long enough, new enough and qpq is not needed. With Copyvio I assume good faith as the article seems to be too long for the earwig.

The fact of the hook is not mentioned in the article, the image is also not used. The image I guess can be helped with easily, how February and March can be included, I am not sure and I'll let you figure out. You can also suggest additional hooks.

Then each paragraph of the article should end with a source which sources the info mentioned above. I am sure there are sources within the article that potentially source each phrase, but we still need some more and I am sure you can help Wikipedia a bit.

• In the post soviet era, the separatist islamist insurrections need an additional source. √

• For the head of the Russian government according to the constitution we need a source. I found one that it is the head of the Government, but not according to the constitution. Maybe you could find one like this?

• For the composition of the three branches of the government we would also need a source at the end of the paragraph. I guess the source above sources it, but it only sources the three branches, not their composition which is mentioned below. Best is to add a source for each point.

1. In Human rights and corruption a source for the kleptocracy description of Russia would be good. A prominent one better. Kleptocracy Removed

• In the first paragraph in Transport and Energy, on the business of Moscows airport there would also be needed a source at the end of the paragraph.√ Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess the block of the DYK nominator solves the issue? I have adapted the article a bit, sourced some phrases and added the image and the phrase needed for the DYK. The Government phrases are too much to find and I'd just approve them per AGF. But then the DYK would have to be approved by another reviewer as I am sort of a prominent editor of the hook:)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle are you intending to adopt this then or should it be closed? CMD (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I could nominate it for DYK. It's an interesting hook. Would I have to nominate it separately? I actually would have preferred a review credit. If you want to nominate yourself, go ahead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting factoid but I do not believe it's suitable for DYK. It is a bit of trivia that is certainly WP:UNDUE in the Russia article. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, who wants to go against Buidhe's advice? I won't. Let's close it then.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing then. CMD (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the nomination could be given another chance. It's not like our article on Russia would ever be eligible for DYK again given that it already reached GA status, and I'm sure there's plenty of material in the article that could be used as a hook, even if not necessarily the revolution angle that was originally proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it might get delisted soon, in which case a relist would be eligible. CMD (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm putting out a note at WT:DYK—we don't often get articles this widely viewed/important, we shouldn't pass this up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem with running that hook, aside from the fact that it's not presently in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The February Revolution hook is misleading – the revolution started in March according to the Gregorian calendar, but in February according to the Julian calendar, which was still used in Russia at the time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that in Russia, International Women's Day on March 8 is so popular that florists can earn profits of "15 times" more than other holidays? — Maile (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

From the article, "International Women's Day on March 8, gained momentum in Russia during the Soviet era. The annual celebration of women has become so popular, especially among Russian men, that Moscow's flower vendors often see profits of "15 times" more than other holidays.^[1]"

• • I like it, and the special occasion posting it can go with. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ooh, great idea! May i suggest the punchier

• ALT1a: ... that florists in Russia can see a fifteenfold increase in profits on International Women's Day compared to other holidays?

• • • We'll probably have at least one hook that delineates that March 8 is IWD, doesn't need to be this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • also, for the cn tag, do any of these sources work? I'm not up on their reliability... [1] [2] [3] [4] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they)
      • I like ALT1a even better. Much more hooky. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Theleekycauldron I have checked some of the sources and to me all are available. Though I must admit, that for Russia to keep the GA status some better sources are needed. The article has just been nominated for reassessment and I think we should better wait. As the original reviewer, I won't review it in the current status. After buidhe voiced doubts on the sourcing and the recently detected ranges from 14% to 70% middle class population I just don't feel comfortable approving it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Fair cop, Paradise Chronicle—I've started a good article reassessment, and we'll put this nomination on hold while we do. If we end up having to reject, and this article then survives GAR, no prejudice against renomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron: Given that March 8 is approaching, the GAR needs to be finished as soon as possible if the IWD hook is to be used. On the other hand, given recent events, there may be more roadblocks for the nomination at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: we're—we're not running this on IWD, right? that would be wildly inappropriate, even if russia pulled back all of its troops tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Theleekycauldron It might be a bad idea to run a hook about Russia anytime soon but I can understand the argument of "the hook should be fine because: 1. the nomination was started long before the conflict began and 2. the hook has nothing to do with politics or the military". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5: The fact that it has nothing to do with politics or the military is the problem—it'd be seen as us trying to change the subject from the fact that Russia is currently carrying out an invasion of a sovereign entity without international or popular support. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Would having a hook about Ukraine running at the same time or at a similar time help, or is the current situation simply too much for any hook about Russia or Ukraine to run anytime soon? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • If there was another cutesy hook about Ukraine to run, maybe we could put them together. But, then, given the victim-bully narrative in US media, as leeky points out, running a hook that paints Russia in this oddly sweet light could be interpreted as a deliberate action along the lines of "look, Russia isn't that bad", while the West at least would find the same statement of "victim" Ukraine to not be worth mention. Navigating this stuff is almost certainly impossible and to be safe, avoiding all mention, with a wide margin of error, too, is the way to go, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @Kingsif: Would pairing this nomination with Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine solve the issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
              • @Narutolovehinata5: I, personally, think we should not post anything that could be related, positive, negative, neutral, whatever, and the idea of putting two kind of opposing POV hooks together to cancel out is not any better (possibly worse, it may be obvious to the reader that we are trying to do that. And we can't discount people thinking "WP wouldn't put up something about Ukraine without being nice to Russia, gross" - on the internet, any possible misinterpretation will happen, you know) - but as convincing as I want to rant, if people really want to put these on the MP, it always takes more effort to keep telling someone no. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that it appears that the GAR is leaning towards a delist I wonder if it would be time to close this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the GAR is leaning towards a delist, as well as instability with the article, it doesn't seem to be ready for DYK at this time. If the article's GA status is kept and the remaining issues are addressed, there is no prejudice against renomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)