Wikipedia:Peer review/Church of the Saviour (Tyumen)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I translated the article from Russian and would appreciate some comments to improve it to good article status. Tomcat (7) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- comments from a quick look-over. It reads like it was translated from Russian frankly, & the English is in places not comprehensible. Too many links to other articles on Russian WP, or not very appropriate English ones, like decor. What is the "Pseudorussian" architectural style? The icon illustrated at the end is in Moscow; that the Tyumen one is another version should be explained in text and caption. Acheiropoieta would be a better link - neither Moscow nor Tyumen versions have ever been near Edessa. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will try to create some of the articles. Changed to "neorussian style". Changed link to Acheiropoieta. Thanks. --Tomcat (7) 10:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I had a look at this article, & the one thing that stood out for me were the words "religious persecution" & the articles linked. Yes, the Soviets did brutally clamp down on the Russian Orthodox Church after they gained power, but this language is enflammatory & violates WP:NPOV. (I looked at several other articles about Russian churches, & this is the only one that uses such language; most are content to mention the eyar the structure was expropriated by the State, although Saint Andrew's Cathedral mentions clashes between militant atheists & devout parishoners.) Further, the links point to general articles like atheism & state atheism, rather than relevant articles such as Atheism in Marxism–Leninism & Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. A more careful survey of this article would probably identify other POV issues like this. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- atheism at that time was radical and fundamenalistic, and the english wiki doesn't really address the topic religious persecutions in the soviet union. That issue is very deep and branchy; the claim that it was just a "quarrel" between "militant atheists & devout parishoners" is undoubtedly incorrect. Notwithstanding, I was unaware of the existence of those articles, and I will change the links accordingly. --Tomcat (7) 11:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)