Talk:Autonomous Workers' Union/GA1

GA review

Passed. Gommeh 📖/🎮 22:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 18:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 17:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. I'll start by comparing the article to the criteria for an immediate failure:

I don't see any copyvios. (check)
There are no cleanup banners needed or present in the article.
I see no history of edit warring.
The article has never been nominated for GA before, so criteria #5 doesn't apply.

The lead section appears to be well-written and complies with the MOS.

I'm a little concerned about the use of Bjork: the source you cited appears to cite the AWU's website, which would be a WP:PRIMARY concern if not used correctly. However, I believe this is less of a concern because the party was dissolved, and definitely a minor issue if anything.

I think the parts I'm using it for would be fine under WP:ABOUTSELF. In any case, it was difficult not to cite this, as it would have left large contextual gaps without it. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That... makes sense. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be giving a large amount of WP:WEIGHT to Ischchenko. I believe that although he is reliable as a researcher of the Freie Universität Berlin, it would perhaps be better to indicate this more openly in the article, e.g. "Researcher Volodymyr Ishchenko stated that...".

Are there any specific sections that you think would benefit from in-text attribution? Happy to provide it where it's necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first or second time the source is cited would be best, personally. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more attributions to Ishchenko, in places I think it verges towards analysis. I've left non-controversial descriptions of facts and stuff that can be verified by the AWU's own statements as is. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to see many other sources listed except for a journal article on post-Maidan Europe; perhaps there's a way to use it to get more context and put it into the article for readers who are uninformed?

I don't see anything in this source about the Autonomous Workers' Union, so I'm not sure how to incorporate it exactly. Is there anything specific about the Maidan and afterwards that I could flesh out more? --Grnrchst (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I'm not an expert on these things so I'm not entirely sure. If you can't find any other sources, then it's fine leaving it as is. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no images at all in the article besides the group's logo. WP:GACR6 applies here, but a quick search would probably turn up at least a few usable images. Gommeh 📖/🎮 17:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images on the group's website are under copyright, so I don't think I can use any of those. I could provide some context images from Commons, like of the Kharkiv Maidan, but these would only be tangentially-related to the main subject. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider applying WP:NFUR here. Technically, GA criteria 6 requires an article be illustrated if possible, and I think that there's no way that a political party that's this historically important isn't going to have any usable images. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images on their website obscure activists' identities using a cat face, so I'm not so sure about including many of these (I think they're a bit too visually cringey for a Wikipedia article). The best possible examples I've found are a photo from the 2015 international women's day march, a video of a small students' demonstration in Kharkiv, and a photo taken after opening an occupied social centre in Kharkiv; all of these are under copyright, so I would have to upload much lower resolution versions to meet the requirements. There's plenty of other photos of anarchist demonstrations out there, but I think it best to stick to ones that clearly identify themselves as with the AST. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to go with the one of the OSC in Kharkiv, which I think satisfies the non-free use rationale. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article-specific questions

What did the AWU mean when it described anti-Maidan activists as "colorados" and "vatniks" specifically?

Essentially those pejorative terms are used to refer to people perceived as supportive of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. "Colorado" refers to the Ribbon of Saint George and "vatnik" was derived from a cartoon which satirised Russian nationalism. I thought linking to these would be enough for clarity, but I'm happy to add a bit of in-text clarification if necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I for one got "colorado" confused with the US state, as I'm sure a lot of readers would. It may be best to add a small amount of in-text clarification in addition to linking to the articles. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide more detail on why the relationship with anti-Maidan organization Borotba was good? Anything specific about them that can tell us more about their relationship that isn't already in the article? (Having said this though, I am satisfied with your coverage of the souring of relations between them, just would like something more on what the relationship was like when it was still good.)

Judging by the source, it seems to imply it was just a case of left-wing activists from both organisations having fraternised before the Maidan broke them apart. It doesn't go into much more depth than that. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you referring to Channell-Justice or Ishchenko when you say that? It may be helpful to specifically say so in the article. Additionally, I doubt simply implying that it was a case of left-wing activists would cut it by our standards as it can be considered WP:SYNTH or WP:OR; ideally, you'd want a source to directly and clearly say that. Gommeh 📖/🎮 23:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've attributed this to Channell-Justice. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gommeh: Hey, just seen you've asked for a second opinion on this. Is there something I missed or need to clarify better? Happy to address anything you think is still outstanding. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just wanted a more experienced reviewer to make sure I was on the right track is all since I'm still kinda new. Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.