Talk:Hero of Belarus

Intro by author

Well, if you folks stumble onto this article, you will see more additions to it. I am trying to get this article to the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so if you have any suggestions, issues, comments, anything, just let me know. Thanks, Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Ok, right now, I am going to compare this article and the criteria of an FA Candidate.

The Criteria

1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.

• • I think that if everything below is in line, this should be taken care of. Plus, the drawings I did can show what artisitic skills Wikipedians have.

1. Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. Read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
   • Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details.

• • • Check. We covered the design, history and recipients. Though, I still need to add what benefits the Heroes recieve.

1. • Accurate: Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).

• • • I got the references cited, but I should probably change the format.

1. • Stable: Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day.

• • • Check.

1. • Well-written: Compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles.

• • • Check.

1. Be uncontroversial (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles) and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).

• • Check.

1. Comply with the standards set in the style manual, as well as relevant WikiProjects. This includes having a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic, headings and have a substantial, but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).

• • Check.

1. Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.

• • Check. Two images were drawn by me, two useds a Promotional/Government photos.

If there is anything else anyone wants to add, go right ahead, but I feel ok about it being FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Bios

Well, a person mentioned we should have bios on all of the Heroes, since there is five of them (to my last count). The following people I have not found bios on.

• Aleksandr Dubko
  • Deceased, was leader of the Agrarian Party of Belarus, also was a Presidential Candidate.
• Vitalius Kremko
  • Not sure about this gentleman
• Pavel luk'yanovich Mariyev
  • He is a Member of the PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR THE ECONOMY, BUDGET and FINANCES, so we can find information on him.

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Privleges

I will try to get this section finished today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Russian?

Why is the Russian name for the medal given, but not the Belarusian name? --Angr/_comhrá 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

All of the official documents have the name in Russian. I have not been able to located the Belarussian name for it. If you find it, that will be wonderful. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can help with Belarusian names. There are two ways of writing Belarusian names in Latin: Translit (straight transliteration from cyrillic to English Latin) or Lacinka. So, names would be:

Łacinka:            Translit:
Pavał Maryjaŭ     | Paval Maryyau
Uładzimier Karvat | Uladzimer Karvat
Alaksandar Dubko  | Alyaksandar Dubko
Michał Karčmit    | Mikhal Karchmit
Vital Kramko      | (the same)

--Czalex 03:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. You can go ahead and place them on the article, or I can do it tomorrow. I think what Angr is talking about is why I had the Russian name of the medal, but not the Belarusian one. I found it today, and I will let Angr know about it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: I was wondering if you can do the Lacinka name for Hero of Belarus? Thanks in advance. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Done that!

One thing we have to discuss on this topic: Lukashists [supporters of the Łukašenka regime and modern Belarusian officials] usually use only Russian language, but Belarusian is also a recognised state language and the national language of Belarus. Belarusian and Russian versions of the same names differ - shall we put both Russian and Belarusian names (personal and like with Герой Беларусі or Савет Рэспублікі) every time or will it be too much a waste of space?--Czalex 04:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that it should be needed, and here is why: Official laws are printed in Russian, as you have mentioned correctly. Many websites I have seen from the Belarusian Government are in Russian. That was why I have the Russian names first, and if I stumble on the Belarusian name, I use it too. Plus, I do not think it is a waste of space, since if you look at the Belarus article, the long and short name of Belarus was given in many languages. And, it pretty much gives the users text to copy and paste into Google and search the subject. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:FA

Score! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko

Everyone knows that Alexander Lukashenko is a very modest man, but I think his name should be mentioned in a more prominent place of the article. It would not only add credibility to the "Hero of Belarus" title but also put it in the right perspective for an unaware reader. Therefore I propose to mention in the second sentence that Alexander Lukashenko is awarding the title. Lysy 16:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of Lukashenko, how about we use a netural term, like the President of Belarus. Mainly, so the article can stay static for a while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better yet, it should be fine the way it is right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dubko Medals

I removed the picture, since I have no proof that he would have done that. It is just hypothetical, and plus, there was a special medal bar for those awarded two or more hero titles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A few requests

I'd like to feature this on the main page, but I have a few requests I'd like to see fulfilled first:

1. Can we get at-least stub articles on the 5 guys who got this medal?
2. A more-lengthy, more descriptive introduction.
3. Rather than drawings, one or more actual photographs of the medal(s). →Raul654 04:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can see what I can do about each hero, but with my luck, it will wind up on VFD. The intro, I can discuss about similar titles. I have found an actual photo of the medal, but I am not sure about the copyright. It is not from the Belarus Government, so I cannot claim PD. However, you can take the photo of Pavieł Maryjaŭ, which was taken from the Council of the Republic website (photo Image:Mariev.jpg, it can be PD, since the Council of the Republic is a Government body, and the photo was taken by the Government.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Great deeds?

This is only a recent, nonhistorical award created by a desperate government. How can we say it is rewarded for 'great deeds'? One could also say that some of the recipients look like complete hacks. I understand that we should neutrally discuss the medals and awards of different countries, but in this case, it needs a lot more context with the history of Soviet awards and the current situation in the country. Tfine80 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"How can we say it is rewarded for 'great deeds'?" "We" have no say in this issue. It is the statute of the award. You may question whether the deeds were great, but you cannot question the medal.

"desperate government": Very funny. Whatever it may be, it is far from desperate. mikka (t) 16:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"great deads": Very funny. If this indeed is a direct quote from Lukashenko's statute of the award, this should be clearly stated int the text. It's not obvious as it is currently. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We can say that they are deeds deemed great by the government. Even in awards about British medals we would say they they given for deeds considered great, not great in themselves. And you don't think the events in Ukraine have made Lukashenko nervous!? Then what the heck is it doing to the Poles? Why do most ex-pats hate the government and the figures that run it? Why is it the only country in the region moving toward Putin instead of the democratic countries? Tfine80 17:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the Great deeds part, it is part of the award criteria. There is no defined acts that can be considered "great" in the law, so it is up to Lukashenko to decide. As for the Belarusian awards in general, they modeled their system after the Soviet honours. Belarus still awards medals for anniversaries of Victory and for other events. They even award Soviet medals, but the Russians do the same thing. As for him being nervous, yeah, I think he should be. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but

I have to say I couldn't care less about this article. Problem is it's not appealing to me in any way. I'm a newbie and I don't know the exact rules around here, but I think that should be a major criteria for determining "Today's featured article". That is, well-written etc. is not enough, the subject should be universally interesting, IMO.

It is not a major criteria, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. You have rights to your point of view, but the criteria was a matter of long discussion. mikka (t) 16:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Interest isn't an issue, but quality is, and I personally doubt that this is good enough too. Hedley 17:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is an good article about awards and I commend the author for organizing information about the nation's medals. However, when he himself admits on this talk page that there is barely enough information to write biographies about the recipients, that represents a gaping problem for a featured article. I even don't think the political question is an issue (although a paragraph about how this medal system compares to the old Soviet one would be interesting), but the problem is that there is little attempt to explain its significance. It is simply described and left at that. Just because only five people have received it in a decade doesn't make it uniquely special. Tfine80 17:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I could not find much information about each recipient is that Belarusian resources online is zero to none, except for government websites and pro-democracy movements. I was very lucky to find what I have been able to find and very lucky to get this article to this Featured Status. I know some will be bored to death by Belarusian topics, or topics about medals in the first place. But, according to Wikipedia users, this article qualifies as a Featured Article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to discourage you or anything. My concern was for the main page (admittedly the subject is a bit boring). On the other hand featured means it should be featured somewhere. I don't even know if there is a separate list of featured articles, never mind me

Unless the article is considered inappropriate, the article gets Featured on the main page. If you look up, you see what I had to do to get it on the front page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to say that one reason I enjoy reading featured articles, apart from the obvious quality, is learning about new subjects that I would most likely have never heard about otherwise. The large majority of featured articles I would only have the scarcest knowledge or be completely ignorant of. This article would fall into that category and I found it intertesting to read and learn of the medal. Of course if you don't feel the same then feel free not to read it. GreatGodOm 10:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I also totally agree. No one neither inside Belarus, nor outside of the country could care less about that medal. I'm sorry that this was chosen as a featured article. I wish people spent their efforts on something more relevant. --rydel 18:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Even assuming that Luka is dictator, that all these people are fake heroes, etc., it is still an educational article, which, e.g., shows why people are officially awarded in Belarus. It is 100% encyclopedic for those interested in Belarus politics.

There was a long discussion about criteria for being featured. And it is not an oversight that importance or interestness of the topic is not one of them. Just the same, one might say that 90% of world population don't give a dime for Marshall, Texas (or I could pick here almost any other featured article) mikka (t) 20:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Lukashenko--the last dictator in Europe

I'm really surprised to see this article featured on the front page of Wikipedia. It's enough to do Google "Belarus dictatorship" to learn what a despot Lukashenko is. What's the value of a medal that is awarded by a dictator?

What's next? An article on "The Hero of the Democratic Republic of Korea"?

Bartosz 19:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actally, there is a title given out by the DPRK called Hero of the DPRK. Plus, my main intent on the article was about the medal, not Lukashenko's politics. I already reverted the instance of him being called a dicator and I will do it again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, pretty much the whole Western world considers Lukashenko's regime a dictatorship. Definitely the US government does, and so do European countries and many international bodies. There was a map published recently in the Scientific American that showed degrees of democracy in the world, and Belarus was there in the same class as DPRK and Iran. Similar views are reflected in the main wikipedia article on Belarus (are you going to revert those too?). With all the information available today, how can you have any doubts about Lukashenko being a dictator. You might like him, or consider him a "benign" dictator, or argue that Belarus is not yet ready for western-style democracy; but it's hard to argue with facts about his regime's record.

Now about your aricle--it's well written and well researched (that's why it was selected for the front page). It's just so... naive. I don't doubt that Uladzimir Karvat was a real hero, who saved innocent lives and paid for it with his own. But c'mon, all the other bozos you mention are just typical apparatchiks. Calling a chairman of a kolkhoz a hero?! A hero medal "for selfless work and valiant efforts in the development of agricultural production"? If this is not pathetic than I don't know what is. Developing agricultural production is just a job.

Anyway, looking forward to the article on the Hero of the DPRK medal.

Bartosz 01:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You probably are not very well aware of the hsitory of the country, also your education probably does not see hard toil as heroism. Like I see in America, the best hero is a gangster, a mafiozi, judging from the amount of movies about them. Looking into the list in the hero article, there are much more pokemon heroes than valiant people. Among other idealistic and utopic ideas, in the Soviet Union there was an attempt to instate valiant and selfless labor as a matter of heroism, to extend this notion beyond the ability to kick someone's else ass or to save a kitten from the fire. It was supposed to be a workers' state. There was a medal Hero of Socialist Labor. "Hero of Belarus" joins both military and civil awards of heroism. Ho one argues that often awards are misdirected, starting from Miss America. Now go away with your disparaging, presumptuous and arrogant remarks. I humbly suggest you to judge things where you are an expert and ask questions where you are not. mikka (t) 03:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to mediate this issue. First, let us separate the accomplishments of the people from any judgment we may have of the leaders. Belarus went through far more destruction than the U.S. Civil War and sometimes the people prefer stability than chaos (especially when dominated by elderly population). Second, Lukashenko is a dictator, but regardless of U.S. official policy, he has never targeted the people in mass (like China) nor has he threatened neighbors or the U.S. (like China), nor does he have the capability of threatening them. Third, I think it reasonable to be suspicious of awards created by dictators. But I think the explanation about the value of work is a good one. I don't know if this can resolve anything, but it is a try. --Noitall 05:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I have not made myself clear: this article is solely based on the medal: not Lukashenko's politics. Yes, Lukashenko eludes to the USSR alot, including the symbols that were "adopted." Yes, Lukashenko is oppressing his people and yes, my government called Lukashenko the last dictator in Europe. However, I do not know what his motives are when creating the title and I do not want this article to be used to describe Lukashenko's policies. That can be left on his article, not here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the reverting: if the dictator reference is used in the main HoB article, or about each hero, I will revert those on sight. But since Lukashenko himself has been declared a dictator, then the reference to that in the main Belarus article or his article will not be reverted. All I am trying to do is make an article about a medal and that's it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

photos

Why were they removed? They fairuse claim was obviously justified. Other reasons? --Irpen 02:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issues. I was a clueless n00b when I uploaded the photos and all have been dealt with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

new heroes

on 1st March Lukashenka gave 5 new "Hero Star"s - to Filaret, Savicki, Vysocki, Prokopovich & Reviako. Here [1] you can read in russian about this. --Monkbel 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Monkbel. I am going to University soon, so I will write this up after I am done with classes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article

I have visited this article and also think that it is worth to be a featured article. But I want to warn the authors, that the information is out-of-date. Especially concerning Belarussian legislation. The Resolution N 3726-XII (its proper URL is now http://bankzakonov.com/obsch/razdel26/time1/lavz0438.htm) is outlawed and replaced by another law (http://www.pravo.by/webnpa/text.asp?RN=H10400288). Thats why the link to the http://www.pravo.by doen't work now. If I had time I would do changes but I'm a bit busy now. May be only in 2-3 days. Some other references don't function too. P.S. Why the lisk of categories sometimes superimposes on my passege & if there are some difficulties with information in Russian I can help to find and to translate?SZv (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  So I have decided to upgrade the article by myself. Those, who decided to visit the page, don't do any changes fo a while. SZv (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

           Done. SZv (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hero of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210043335/http://sb.by/print.php?articleID=6254 to http://sb.by/print.php?articleID=6254
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027061351/http://armyby.vif2.ru:80/karvat.html to http://armyby.vif2.ru/karvat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229225851/http://www.president.gov.by:80/press17427.html to http://www.president.gov.by/press17427.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111153619/http://www.ctv.by/proj/~group__m11=409~page__n1101=1~news__n1101=30389 to http://ctv.by/proj/~group__m11=409~page__n1101=1~news__n1101=30389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hero of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217035445/http://www.president.gov.by/en/press19332.html to http://www.president.gov.by/en/press19332.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://armyby.vif2.ru/karvat.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.gov.by/press17427.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.by/proj/~group__m11%3D409~page__n1101%3D1~news__n1101%3D30389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hero of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005062931/http://www.president.gov.by/press28330.html to http://www.president.gov.by/press28330.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229225846/http://www.president.gov.by/en/press24141.html to http://www.president.gov.by/en/press24141.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829085532/http://www.sovrep.gov.by/index_eng.php/.455.1561...1.0.0.html to http://www.sovrep.gov.by/index_eng.php/.455.1561...1.0.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hero of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826114007/http://www.tvr.by/eng/news.asp?id=15852&date=21.03.2006%2014%3A16%3A00 to http://www.tvr.by/eng/news.asp?id=15852&date=21.03.2006%2014%3A16%3A00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This is a 2006 promotion that needs to be reviewed against current FA standards.

• The article features uncited information;
• The prose is lacking at times:
  • "When the title was created, a suggested medal was drafted and designed by the government. The major difference between this medal and the current medal is..."
  • "The designers are Ivan Lukin and Oleg Gaiko. The printing is offset and full-color. Paper is chalk-overly and rubberized. The size of stamps are 29,6 × 52 mm."
• The "Recipients" section is not FA-worthy, with a substancial mini-bio for Karvat, and stubby, one-sentence long bios for Dubko, Savicki, Vysotsky and so on. One gets the notion that noboby knows much about these gentlemen and why exactly they were awarded the medal.
• The "Recipients" section is written as "X was awarded, Y was awarded, Z was awarded", which is not an engaging read.
• The references are not well formatted, with a number of them being named "Archived copy" and even two of them that are just numbers.
• The article draws some comparisons to former Soviet Union awards, but it's all very superficial and uncited. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)