This review is transcluded from Talk:Viacheslav Chornovil/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mupper-san (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Joko2468 (talk · contribs)

Taking this up. Excellent work, the article is comprehensive and, though it's a little rough around the edges at the start, it's well written. Good luck on your other articles by the way, I always found the sheer volume of material written about the Banderites too daunting. Joko2468 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've addressed the issues raised at the previous review really well. The article is long enough that I'm content with these just hitting the most notable points as the WP:BESTSOURCES allow, rather than being fully comprehensive (see WP:EXHAUSTIVE). For instance I'm not too bothered about the Ukrainian Helsinki Group being re-established without the reader having been told it shut down-- they can read that article to clarify the context. The article is long but I don't personally think a spin-off article about his return to Ukraine is reasonable.

• Privately, Chornovil expressed a desire to deploy the Ukrainian military to Crimea, but he did not publicly state this as he felt that such a demand would go unfulfilled by Kravchuk or the rest of the government. This should be removed if a reliable source can't be found. Joko2468 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• pp. 358-359, I think this material on his policy towards Russia would be useful to have alongside the Crimea text. His position on the CIS is predictable but stated alongside his support of the treaty with Russia, I think it's valuable to the reader. Since Derevinskyi didn't make clear, p. 493 (bibliography) and the context suggests that this was regarding the 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, I don't think it refers to the Massandra Accords? You're much better placed to make that judgement.

Joko2468 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are several contested claims in the article that need to be conclusively settled (the article is long, so you can ctrl+f for the italicised phrases to find them):

• The date his flat was searched in 1965-- there is no 31 September (that year, Chornovil's Lviv flat was search) This paragraph came up in the citations spot check, see below (ref. 19).
• His relationship to Marxist-Leninism around 1971 (At this time, Chornovil also departed from principles of Mar). This is disputed at the start of the Revolution section, it seems it should be removed.
• Alleged economic blockade of Galicia in 1990 (ntrol of the central Soviet government and imposed an economic blockad)
• Productivity increases in 1992-1993 (imports. Hyperinflation began and produc)

13, 197, 31, 19, 160, 71

• 31: I'm struggling to find a readout of the 2018 conference, could you please provide me with a link or the quotation supporting this paragraph? This is supported, however it says that the letter was sent in July not June.
• 19: this is also the 2018 conference. The date of the raid was 30 September. It doesn't say 190 books, in that number is included periodicals etc. "Literary materials" would be accurate. Alongside the seized WWI books, the author mentions ones relating to the 1917-1921 Revolution, rather than the interwar period, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Rest is good.
• 160: and again! This is good but I don't think the conference was on "the future of Rukh", it's ostensibly on the politics of Rukh (which happen to be future-oriented) and it's place in history. This should be amended.
• 71: to my reading, this does not say that the Ukrainian Herald was published on the day of the article, it says: Саме у ці серпневі дні 1987 року у Львові вийшов у світ свіжий номер журналу "Український вісник". (It was in these August days of 1987 that a new issue of the magazine "Ukrainian Herald" was published in Lviv.?)

Joko2468 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joko2468

Hi. First of all, let me apologise for the delay in the response. Secondly, regarding your points: while I'm overwhelmed by work these days (as probably evidenced by how long it took for me to respond), I'll take a look at the things you mentioned and amend them as soon as I can (hopefully, within this week). I also agree on the recommendations outside of the review you made, so I'll go through those at the same time.

Thanks,

Mupper-san (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, this can stay open for as long as you need-- as long as you check back in every so often to let GA monitors know you're still intending to engage then this won't be a problem. If you have any questions or you'd like my help or advice on something, feel free to ask (I'm also happy to help research something if you don't have the time). Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given you appear to be busy in your personal life, I didn't want to hold up the process for the sake of some minor issues so I went ahead and fixed them myself (feel free to amend as you see fit).

• The economic blockade of Galicia appears to be a nationalist myth, this journal article specifically on the origins of the Galician Assembly and this article only mention the economic turmoil surrounding the USSR's collapse. It is present in the Galician Assembly's Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine article-- from my recollection this encyclopedia is more neutral than the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine which can be quite pro-nationalist. I've nevertheless rewritten this with the journal article as it would be a strange omission.
• I couldn't find support for Chornovil's private thoughts on deploying the military to Crimea-- for posterity, here's the removed sentence: Privately, Chornovil expressed a desire to deploy the Ukrainian military to Crimea, but he did not publicly state this as he felt that such a demand would go unfulfilled by Kravchuk or the rest of the government.
• Added a sentence on the CIS and friendship treaty to the Crimean issue section.

I also romanised the titles (this is the website I used) but didn't feel comfortable making the changes that are outside the scope of the review. Excellent work on the article, well-deserved pass. Joko2468 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Only the first section: it can sometimes be better to show rather than tell, in my view articles can engender more trust from a reader if they aren't told what to think. For instance, you needn't tell the reader that Chornovil's childhood was dominated by Soviet repressions, you can show them that he grew up during the purge, that his uncle was executed and his father a fugitive. The reader is smart enough to come to this conclusion on their own, based off the facts (unless there really is no doubt or opinion in the matter). Similarly, unless it really is a fact, you needn't describe Chornovil's childhood as "tumultuous" to explain his Communist upbringing and ideally you wouldn't explain since this seems to be the subject of opinion, the reader will reasonably infer this.
• It would be great if you could distinguish what faction of the OUN Yaroslav Dobosh was a part of, but it doesn't affect the narrative.

Joko2468 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]