Wikipedia:Peer review/Luzhniki disaster/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luzhniki disaster[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, after the recent Port Said Stadium clashes I paid attention to somewhat similar Luzhniki disaster in 1982. I discovered that Wikipedia article about this disaster was a start-class and pretty basic. I worked a lot on it recently. Unfortunately, English is not my native language. Would you be so kind to let me know how could I improve this article and correct my most obvious mistakes?

Thanks, Potorochin (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Not a full review by any means:
    • Try the toolbox on the right-hand side of this page, specifically the automated checker and the alt text checker.
    • If you're wanting copyediting, you might look into posting it on the WP:GUILD requests page, although be forewarned that it's rather backlogged.
  • Allens (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm taking a look:
    • I'm doing some copy-editing.
    • You tend to over-link (something that I also do...); common terms like "girl" do not need to be linked.
    • You need to take a closer look at the specifications for the citation templates - try looking at some of the ways I've changed them.
  • Allens (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I already see a great job that you are doing on this article. I'm not going to interfere with editing this article, while you work on it. Would you please let me know when you finish, so that I may continue editing it according to your advices? Thank you again --Potorochin (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. I've about finished copyediting it - I suspect I may have missed some problems with earlier references, though (particularly on things like the lastname/firstname formatting). Would you like to try fixing those, or should I? Allens (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't bother, you already did a great job. I had a good laugh, when I realized what kind of stupid mistakes I managed to make like crash instead of crush. I'll try to keep editing this article following your advices. But if you have a chance to come back, say, the next day, and take a look on this article again, it would be awesome. Thank you --Potorochin (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite welcome; I'll try to come back by and take a look tomorrow or the next day (I have a class to teach tomorrow evening). Glad you can laugh on the mistakes - silly mistakes happen to all of us, even when writing in our first language...Allens (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you return back to this article would you please take a look on the use of articles in this article? There are no articles in the Russian language, so I just put them here and there, wherever I feel they belong to. But I feel myself very unsure in using them :( --Potorochin (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly take another look, and I understand completely; that's a very common difficulty. (I found the differences in articles between English and Spanish a headache when I was learning my minimal bit of Spanish, and those languages are not extremely far apart.) My wife, as it happens, isn't a native English speaker, and I don't think Hebrew has articles either (or, even if it does, I'm sure the rules are rather different); I will inquire of her and take a look at her grammar books for any helpful rules of thumb (I do it by instinct, which isn't a very helpful rule description for you in learning how to do it...). Allens (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least for telling when to use "the", you might take a look in a book for native Russian speakers on learning Bulgarian or Macedonian (assuming you don't know one of them already) - they're apparently about the only Slavic languages with articles (as a suffix onto the verb, as it turns out). I was just checking out the Wikipedia article on articles - very interesting! Allens (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very nice "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings, which has several pages of rules only about articles. But I find some of these rules so ambiguous sometimes, that I just have to retreat to my intuition. And as I'm not a woman, my intuition is not faultless :) --Potorochin (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Don't tell my wife, but neither is a woman's... Reading over well-written material in English (stay away from newspapers for this! They tend to leave out articles, particularly tabloids or in titles) may help you learn. My wife also says to ask a native Russian speaker with good command of them about it (although I suspect you're already better than most!). The article on English articles may be of assistance. Allens (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I never heard about the "Contains Cyrillic text" template. Oh gush, I feel myself absolute novice now... --Potorochin (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only thought of it when I was looking at the "lang-ru" template (I concluded it wasn't suitable for names, since those aren't in a different language, "just" in a different alphabet & pronunciation system). I went up a level and noticed the Cyrillic text one, and remembered seeing it in other articles. (I also just found the "outdent" template that I just used...) Allens (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks very nice now, but it's still labeled as a start-class article. Do you think it would be appropriate, if you, as an experienced user, who already thoroughly examined this article, will do its reassessment now? --Potorochin (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the Talk page, it's down as a C-class article (higher than Start-class). For a higher one, you should probably inquire at the assessment departments of the WikiProjects whose banners are on the Talk page - I'm not a member of any of them, so I don't have experience with their assessment rules, at least for anything more than Stub vs Start classes. You might be interested in becoming a member of one or more of them - that's generally just a matter of putting your name on a page - then asking for the assessment to be examined. (For instance, they can tell you if there's anything specific to those projects that needs doing.) Allens (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I see that the Start-to-C-class change just happened today, so it already has been assessed for going higher than Start-class. You may still want to sign up on those WikiProjects, partially to ask them what improvements would make it B-class. Allens (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Allens, for a HUGE contribution to this article. You walked much more than an extra mile for me! I consider this article really important, as, I hope, it would eventually clarify a lot of uncertainties, still surrounding this tragic event of the modern history, for researchers and enquiring readers from all over the world.
I probably wouldn't make any more changes myself in the text of this article, as I'm afraid to create new grammar mistakes. But I may try to continue improving citations for this article, so that they fully comply with Cite news and other templates. I hope it would also speed up the promotion of this article from C to B-class.
As regarding this peer review, I might leave it for a while. It should be closed automatically after one month of its creation, anyway, so, there is no need to close it manually now, in case somebody else would decide to contribute to this article.
Thank you very much again --Potorochin (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cloudz679

Lead

  • "Until than" - typo (then)
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3" - three
  • I agree on "than" -> "then". "three" is incorrect when it's matched with a number in numeric form, namely 340. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster/Match

  • "(According to some reports the total number of tickets sold was 16,643.)" - this should have a citation and not be in parentheses.
 Partly done Not sure I removed the parentheses. As regarding the citation: according to the investigator, about 16,000 tickets were sold; according to the stadium director about 16,500 tickets were sold. The figure of 16,643 tickets I found in several blogs of FC Spartak fans. From one side, I know, that blogs are not a reliable source of information, that is why I didn't cite them. From the other side, the figure of 16,643 tickets perfectly correlates with the two official figures. And it is a very specific figure (I didn't find any other specific figures of the number of tickets sold). So it just looks like this figure is actually accurate. The only problem, that it was not cited originally. Of course, I can through this figure away from the article, but I sincerely feel that it's an accurate figure and I wouldn't not be happy to sacrifice it just because of my inability to find the original source. What should I do: 1) through it away and forget about it? 2) cite one of the fan's blogs where this figure is present? 3) do not cite this figure, but move it from the main body of the article down to the "Notes" section? 4) do not use separate sentence for this figure and incorporate it (in parentheses) into the sentence with an official figure? --Potorochin (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1982, the Luzhniki Stadium had no cover (the cover was only installed in 1997)" - again the parentheses are not appropriate.
  • I disagree on the second one; the parentheses can't simply be removed, but will need to be replaced with a ";".
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the 16th minute" - wrong preposition (in).
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first goal for Spartak was scored by Edgar Gess." - word order, Edgar Gess scored the first goal for Spartak.
 Done Though, I think, the previous version better expressed the idea, that after the first goal so early in the game the FC Spartak fans could have been more inclined to leave the match earlier, as they were confident in the win of their team and they didn't expect the score to change anymore --Potorochin (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want another option, try "In the 16th minute Spartak took the lead through an Edgar Gess strike". Cloudz679 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster/Crush

  • "the Stairway 1." - incorrect use of the. Delete.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a leader of the country" - incorrect use of a. Delete.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of the fatalities died of compressive asphyxia" - use victims instead of fatalities.
  • I would say "deceased victims"; after all, not all the victims died. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "He even went so far as firing (on 17 December 1982, two months after the stampede)" - On 17 December 1982, two months after the stampede, he even…
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed in the Butyrka prison" - incorrect use of the. Delete.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyzhin, a World War II veteran, was admitted to the hospital after a heart attack." - incorrect use of the. Delete.
  • That depends on whether American (use "the") or British (optional "the") English is desired. Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last-minute unexpected goal" - I don't know how you can establish the truth of "unexpected". Delete.
 Done I suppose no fan would leave the stadium if he/she thinks that the score is about to change. Some unofficial reports on the second Ibrox disaster, and the Luzhniki disaster as well, even speculated that the stampedes happened because of some fans, who were leaving the stadium, turned back after hearing of a scored goal- so nobody expected these goals. But you are right, there is no proof for the "unexpectedness" of these goals, and, as this word doesn't bear any importance for the contents of this article, I won't hesitate to delete it.

Media coverage/before 1989

  • I know the quote is translated from Russian, but preposition "on" (the Grand Sports Arena) should be "at".
 Done red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning I've done this translation myself, as the only other (which I found) English translation, made from the original note in Vechernyaya Moskva, was pretty shortened and somewhat misleading, comparing to the Russian original. Here it is:"As spectators made their way out of a football match at the Lenin Stadium, an accident took place as a result of non-compliance with safety regulations. There were casualties. An inquiry will be held" There were also many translations made not from the original note, but from its much shortened and inaccurate version presented in the "dark secret" article of Sovetsky Sport. They sounded like this: "Yesterday in Luzhniki after the football match an accident occurred. There are some injured among the spectators." That is why I included the original Russian text of this note from Vechernyaya Moskva in the "Notes" section. I realize that this quotation might probably be used in future by English-speaking researchers, so if you think there is any way to improve it and to make it sound more accurate and coherent in English, please let me know. --Potorochin (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see much of a way to improve it. Are the latter two sentences as abrupt in Russian as they sound in English? Allens (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are. Here is this text of a note, as it appeared in the "dark secret" article: "Вчера в Лужниках после окончания футбольного матча произошел несчастный случай. Среди болельщиков имеются пострадавшие" And the Sovetsky Sport's journalists even used the quotation marks when they provided this text of a note. When I read it the first time, it struck me, that this quotation just doesn't sound like the "newspaper style" (e.g. no newspaper in 1982 would write "Luzhniki" instead of the "Central Lenin Stadium", etc.). Actually this incorrect quotation in the Wikipedia article, moved me to check this quotation and other publicized facts of this disaster and to find out that the vast majority of the information about the Luzhniki disaster in the modern media is just a replication of the incorrect and misguiding information from one single article, "Luzhniki's Dark Secret". --Potorochin (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "published (on 21 and 24 October 1982) detailed accounts of this match" - again the parentheses are used incorrectly. Move the information about the dates to the end of the clause.
 Done I moved the dates to the front of this sentence, as I don't know how to put them to the end in a coherent way. --Potorochin (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not say that the parentheses are used incorrectly, simply that there are better ways to put it in terms of style. Allens (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and, probably, other news agencies" - not recommended. If other agencies reported it, name and reference them, if there is no evidence, remove this part completely.
 Done I removed it. Though taking into consideration that ANSA is an Italian news agency and this match involved the Soviet and the Dutch teams and journalists, they most probably used the reports from ANP or some larger international news agency. But, as I didn't find any references to other agencies, I'd better not mention this idea, you are right. --Potorochin (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should be understand" - understood (grammar, passive).
 Done I replaced it with "should be understood" --Potorochin (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other Western newspapers informed" - reported.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that there were 3 people killed and 60 injured in this stampede" - that three people had been killed and 60 injured in this stampede.
  • I disagree - the MoS says to match the numbers used in the rest of the sentence. Keep it as "3". Allens (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 → three.
  • "Three days later, on 26 October The New York Times informed" - reported.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Stampa informed" - reported.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1987, El País lowered" - had lowered.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until 1989, none of these figures were neither confirmed, nor challenged, by the Soviet officials." - Delete "none of".
 Done Replaced "none of ... neither ..., nor" with "none of ... either ..., or" --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 April

  • "The journalists noticed, that no information" - delete comma.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Luzhniki was ever revealed" - Luzhniki had ever been revealed.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "admitted in the article that they are not familiar with the archived evidence" - that they were not…
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accusing the police officers on the stadium in provoking this disaster" - at the stadium of provoking...
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 July

  • "information was withdrawn" - information was hidden.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no journalist ever approached him" - no journalist had ever approached him.
 Done This passage was removed --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "simple request,- advised the detective." - simple request, the detective advised.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 July

  • "Two months later, in August 1989, the Moscow Prosecutor's Office in a special press conference in Moscow confirmed that there were 66 fatalities of the disaster in Luzhniki." In a special press conference in Moscow in August 1989, the Moscow Prosecutor's Office confirmed that there had been 66 fatalities in the disaster in Luzhniki.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 September

  • "On 27 September 1989, Sovetsky Sport finally admitted that information, provided by their journalists" - delete comma after information.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western media outlet reported" - has reported.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sun newspaper published in the UK a sensational article about the Hillsborough disaster" - The Sun newspaper published a sensational article in the UK about the Hillsborough disaster.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After 1989

  • "In 2007 NTV aired in Russia its "Fatal Goal" (Роковой гол) documentary about the Luzhniki disaster" - aired its "Fatal Goal" (Роковой гол) documentary in Russia about the Luzhniki disaster.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, ESPN Classic aired throughout Europe a Dutch documentary "Russian Night, the hidden football disaster"." - aired a Dutch documentary "Russian Night, the hidden football disaster" throughout Europe.
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • "Both photos were made when the footballers were leaving the pitch after the game" - Both photos were taken…
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have only addressed the grammar but I hope it helps to improve the article. Cloudz679 12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, picture caption "After 1997: An evening football match in cold weather, as on 20 October 1982". Confusing. Is it in 1982 or after 1997? Make sure this is clear. Cloudz679 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well, I thought it is clear enough, but if it is not, I just removed "as on 20 October 1982" --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see, I wouldn't leave the article frozen in regard to grammar - I can certainly mess up! Allens (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more I've just seen! "went so far as firing" should be "went as far as firing". This is actually a common mistake with Czech speakers of English as well. Cloudz679 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just discovered the hidden text at the top of this peer review: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" I was using these templates recently in my replies in this review, and I found them quite helpful in navigating through this review (it's not so small, as it used to be) and also in realizing what else should be done. Please let me know, if the use of these templates is really unacceptable in such review and I remove them immediately. --Potorochin (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed that one also when I was looking at peer reviews initially. You might substitute the  Done and ✗ Not done versions. Allens (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it :) --Potorochin (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Potorochin (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Cloudz and Allens:

I'd like to make some clarifications. On 11-12 February Allens generously spent a lot of time copyediting this article. I do appreciate greatly his time and efforts and I realize the very high quality of his edits. I revealed in this peer review above, my intention not to mess up with the text of this article anymore, as I realize how difficult it is to get an editor (and especially such a good editor as Allens) to copyedit your article, because of a huge backlog of the articles needed this job.

But afterwards, after searching through the publications about this disaster in other European languages (not English or Russian) I discovered several new facts which, as I understood, ought to be included in this Wikipedia article for its completeness and accuracy. So I added a considerable amount of new information, using my poor knowledge of the English grammar. I realized that this article need to be copyedited again. But I knew from Allens's user page that he is a doctor and a college professor. And, realizing how busy he is, I would never bother him again asking for a new copyedit of this article.

So I would like now to apologize to Allens that my recent edits, made after 12 February, have concealed his great job on this article before, and that this article, which is marked as being copyedited by Allens just a week ago, may not have looked like Category B article in terms of grammar and style after my edits. I'm really sorry :( --Potorochin (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I wouldn't say that your grammar and style are "poor". (I've seen very bad English, including from my students - for whom English is a native language! - and yours isn't it.) As I said above (sorry for my lateness on getting back to you on that), I would not want you to try to freeze the article - I don't own it any more than you or Cloudz679 do, and I'm happy to hear that you've been updating it with more info. (I'm impressed by your knowledge of languages!) I may well have the time a bit down the road to at least skim over the article to look for anything that jumps out at me - between semesters/quarters, or even before that (one thing that helps me as a copyeditor and Wikipedia contributor is that I read and type very fast, not to brag...). I doubt there will be that much, though. Allens (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, looking at the article I had no preconceptions that anyone had really gone through it. I was aware of the first two lines of this page, where Allens had said he had no time for it, and being a football-related article I thought I would take a look for myself and make some comments. Although Allens agreed with most of my recommendations, I don't believe this is any reflection on the standard of his work, and frequently any editor can see something another editor, even a very high quality one, cannot. As for the article itself, I think it is really useful - and will continue to be - so this is a great reason to have it on Wikipedia, looking as good as possible. One day we might see this as a good article - in the mean time, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you would like a second opinion on anything. Cloudz679 10:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually have asked for a copyediting (from someone else!) of an article that's mostly written by me, Gloucester County College, and that's after having asked for a peer review for it. It's definitely the case that one person will see what another won't. Allens (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Cloudz and Allens for a great job on improving the grammar and style of this article. What else, do you think, could be done for this article to get closer to the B-class standards? --Potorochin (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For me B2, B4 and B6 are now met. The other criteria seem to have been met prior to this review. Therefore I am upgrading the rating of this article to B class. Good job, Potorochin. - Cloudz679 09:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Luzhniki_disaster/archive1&oldid=479812640"