Talk:Dmytro Dontsov/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: GalStar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I first learned about Dontsov from Timothy Snyder's lecture series (which I see is cited here), so I'm eager to review this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I notice that you are extensively citing Erlacher's book, but you haven't provided any page numbers. Given the book is over 600 pages long, this makes it a pain to identify. At GA level, I would expect references to a book of this length to include page numbers.

Lead and infobox

• This lead is absurdly short, given the length of the article. A lead section should provide an accessible overview of the article's content.
• The first sentence is far too long and meandering. It should be trimmed, or broken up.
• What is an "ideologist"? I've never seen this term in a lead sentence before.
• Why are these three sources bundled together in the lead? Why are they not cited in the body? Don't they have any more information to provide?

Early life and education

• "Dontsov was born in Melitopol, located in the Taurida Governorate" When?
• "considered part of Novorossiya by the imperial authorities at the time and now within Zaporizhzhia Oblast." You could trim this down to "(modern-day Zaporizhzhia Oblast)".
• "He was born to a Ukrainian mother, [...]" This is quite a long, run-on sentence. Consider trimming it down or breaking it up. We don't need Dontsov's father's entire life story, only the most relevant aspects to Dontsov's own biography.
• "Dontsov and his younger sisters [...]" Another long, run-on sentence that could do with breaking up or trimming down.
• If you're not even naming Dontsov's brothers, why are we getting their whole life stories?
• "In 1900 Dontsov" Another run-on sentence that could do with breaking up.
• "Following his release, [...]" This is an absurdly long, bordering on unreadable, sentence.
• "an autonomous Ukraine part of a social democratic Russia" Shouldn't it be "as part"?
• "On the movement to establish a Ukrainian university in Lviv" What does this have to do with anything else in this paragrpah? It's jarring seeing this brought up without any context.
• Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, citations for a quotation should go at the end of the introductory sentence, not in the blockquote itself.
• Is this such an important quote that it needs a blockquote? Can we not trim it down to the most important aspects, or better yet, summarise it?
• "From 1909-1911, [...]" My goodness... this entire paragraph is one long run-on sentence. This is the worst case yet.
• Is Mariia Bachynska notable enough for her own article? If so, it'd be worth red-linking her.
• Again, keep the details on other people down to what is necessary for Dontsov's biography. This is a lot of detail about Bachynska's life.
• "Disillusioned with the utopian promises of Marxism," This comes out of nowhere. What were his experiences with Marxism at this point? Why was he disillusioned with it?
• "in the inevitable clash between the 'progressive' West and 'reactionary' East" Is this Dontsov's view? If so, we should be making that clear and not labelling the West and East as "progressive" and "reactionary" in wikivoice.
• "He presented this political programmme, [...]" Another unreadable run-on sentence.
• "a deeply controversial and exceptionally radical position" Are we calling it this in wikivoice? Or was this how it was characterised by others?

First World War and the Ukrainian War of Independence (1914-1921)

• "At the outset of the First World War in 1914, [...]" This article is going to need to be completely re-written if this unreadable sentence structure is maintained throughout. By the end of this sentence, I have no idea what is still being discussed.
• "Dontsov's 1915 work initially circulated" What 1915 work?!?!
• " though this would practically amount to little" Then why are we mentioning it?
• "Opposed to the initially pacifist [...]" Another long run-on sentence.
• "Ukrainian Democratic Agrarian Party" Is there a Ukrainian Wikipedia article on this? If so, worth providing an interlanguage link to it.
• "effect a coup d'état" Effect?
• This is an entire paragraph of context that could be trimmed down to keep the focus on Dontsov.
• "On receiving news that the White Volunteers [...]" Another absurdly long run-on sentence.
• "In February, [...]" Another long run-on sentence.
• "following the fall of Kyiv" Link to Battle of Kiev (January 1919).

Interwar period and Ukrainian integral nationalism (1921-1939)

• "Dontsov gave credence to the Judeo-Bolshevism myth" How? You're prefacing this with a preemptive defense of Dontsov, but not explaining how he lent credence to this conspiracy theory.
• "An embarrassing affair" Not a neutral descriptor in wikivoice.
• "purportedly written by Yuriy Tyutyunnyk but who was actually under the coercion of the Ukrainian branch of the GPU" What?
• "Having already diverged and clashed on matters of will regarding conscious striving against irrational feeling and strategy regarding top-down landed gentry against bottom-up peasantry" WHAT? This is complete gobbledygook.
• "Dontsov's refusal to cooperate with the UVO" Another long run-on sentence.
• "Having long espoused antisemitic views" He did? This is the first time we're bringing it up!
• You're bouncing between double and single quotation marks without any apparent reason.
• Needless to say, this is another long run-on sentence.

Second World War (1939-1945)

• "whereafter Dontsov and Bachynska-Dontsova divorced" Why?
• Why is there so much detail about Nataliia Gerken-Rusova?

Post-war exile

• "Dontsov attempted to promote" Another long run-on sentence.

Death

• "30 March, 1973" What's with the comma?
• Why is there a separate section for his death? It doesn't appear like his death had much to it, so this section could easily be merged into "Post-war exile".

Ideology

• This section is full of overquoting. Most of these quotations could easily be rewritten in summary style.
• "His theories came to be considered integral nationalistic but authentically Ukrainian." Citation? Also "authentically Ukrainian" strikes me as non-neutral.
• "In a style of analysis more typical of the Russian intelligentsia," According to whom?
• There's lots of non-neutral turns of phrase in this last paragraph.
• "many Ukrainians not only in Galicia but in Volyn as well, where OUN influence had been negligible before 1941 and the local Ukrainian movement had been led by the Communist Party of Western Ukraine and where his writings were sold even more than in Galicia." Citation?

Legacy

• This section is surprisingly short, considering what we know about Dontsov's influence.
• "January 24, 2019" This should be in DMY formatting.

Main Works

• Works should not be capitalised in the section header.
• Do all of these have English translations? Or are these your own translations of the titles?
• This should be following the Manual of Style on lists of works. The current use of bold text does not fit with this.

Bibliography

• This bibliography is a mess of un-formatted and unused sources.

Notes

• There should be a section for explanatory footnotes; right now they're randomly shoved at the end of the bibliography. See MOS:NOTES for information on layout.
• "This article was updated in 2002 but it's likely a safe assumption that this was to add developments since 1993 rather than to revise the content. " This is clearly original speculation on your part, and it contains no important information for the reader, so it can easily be cut.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is neither clear nor concise. Most of the article is made up of long, unreadable run-on sentences, and many times it introduces new information out of nowhere with no context.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section is far too short for an article of this length. There are style issues throughout.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The bibliography is not a bibliography, mixing together some sources that are cited with others that aren't. The selective use of Sfn formatting for two sources in the bibliography clash with the predominant form of long citations.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Reliable sources are cited throughout, but a lack of page number references for the principal cited source makes verification impossible.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple cases where no citation is provided for information.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I'd hope there's no copyvios or plagiarism from Erlacher, as that would say something very bad about the prose quality of the source. Earwig only flags clearly attributed quotes from the Encyclopedia of Ukraine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Some gaps in the biography have been noted.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article regularly loses focus to provide far too much context about tangentially-related people or events.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A few cases where the article makes a non-neutral declaration in Wikivoice.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Large edits made by an IP editor after the GA nomination.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Incomplete information about publication and authorship makes the licenses provided for the photographs of Dontsov seem dubious. The photograph of the plaque also may not have a valid license, as Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Pictures are all relevant to the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately, I'm going to have to quickfail this nomination, as it is a long way off GA criteria. In particular, the prose is unreadable, with far too many run-on sentences that sometimes get up to an absurd length. The lack of page numbers for Erlacher's book also makes verification downright impossible. It fails GA criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 by a wide margin, and doesn't meet 5 or 6 either. This article will need a complete re-write before it comes close to GA criteria, and I don't think this can be done during a review process. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2025 (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.