Talk:Photo exhibition “Ethnic features of the world people” took place in the Crimean capital

Harmful images

Some are very difficult to look at.... BigKrow (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite understand... Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Very vivid images kids wouldn't enjoy reading this.... BigKrow (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ethnography (and the Wikimedia project in general) is not really for kids. And on the poster there is a restriction: 16+ — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Pre-review

Status:    Unsure; Updated 14:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Version evaluated: 4793336

• Copyright: Passed
• Newsworthiness: Not ready: See notes below. The expedition would be a more newsworthy event than the exhibition
• Verifiability: Not ready: No notes have been added to support the original reporting.
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Not ready: See update question below regarding new section added

Notes for author(s):

I think this would be more compelling as original reporting if the reporting was on the expedition itself, rather than on the exhibition. I think readers would get more pleasure from reading about the traditions and cultures that you experienced in your travels and how you traveled. For example, the bit about riding in the back of a truck with the locals while needing a formal ticket is interesting and as a reader, I'd like to hear more about how you got around to various places and what you experienced.

In the sources section, article titles are meant to be in the original language, not translated, per WN:Source.

Also worth considering, WN:Source also states the following:

An additional concern is non-English-language sources. These severely restrict the pool of potential reviewing editors. Non-English sources should be restricted to those absolutely essential, such as where there is only a single English source and the non-English source is required to corroborate the story and avoid potential copyright issues. It is strongly recommended you provide some guidance toward translation, or where such may be reliably and readily obtained, on the talk page. Human understanding is needed because automatic translation is not nearly good enough.

Because you are both the reporter of the event (in this case the exhibition) as well as the traveler who took the photos and undertook the expedition, it feels more self-serving and self-promoting than reporting.

Notes for reviewer:

Much of Viktor's work has been published here and this article does not deviate from the style of what has been previously published. Many previous articles are clearly reporting on exhibitions rather than expeditions; Category:Viktor_Pinchuk_(1969). Because of the established precedent of publishing as well as my lack of experience with original reporting, I am not providing any recommendation beyond what is noted above in the notes to the author.

When comparing page-views of various articles of original reporting,[1] I wonder if a change in style might increase views.

Updated notes:

* The author has removed some sources that are in Russian.[2]

• The titles of sources are now in the original language.[3]
• The article has been expanded to include more details of the expedition but the main focus remains the exhibition.
• No notes have been added regarding the original reporting or to provide guidance as to translation of the non-English sources provided.

QuestionA new section containing "Other exhibitions of the author" has been added. The links point to another Wiki project; Books. Therefore should that section title be changed to "Sister links" and moved to the appropriate position per WN:Style?

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of it passing a formal review. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed three Russian-language links. The rest of the recommendations are similar to reasoning:-)
If I were not both the author of the article and the traveler/photographer, news readers would not have seen the photographs from the exhibition (27 out of 280 are presented here) and would not have been able to evaluate the creativity, but would only have read the text describing the event. In other words, the article would be “gray” and not very interesting. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Travel literature/reporting is not limited to the written word. It might be more effective to report on the expedition itself with a comprehensive photo gallery. In my opinion, this approach could be more relevant and engaging than reporting on an exhibition.

I changed the titles of the sources to show what I was trying to say above with 'In the sources section, article titles are meant to be in the original language, not translated." Feel free to revert those changes. Previously published articles of yours have contained translated titles so there must be an exception for original reporting. Though it causes awkward, double-quotation marks around the titles when using the {{Translated quote}} along with {{source}}, both of which insert their own quotation marks. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The news article is about a cultural event, I'm not sure if the background should be described. The description of trips and expeditions will take up a lot of space and shift the emphasis from “Ethnographer’s Day” to “Traveller’s Day”:-)
It's easier to give a link: https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Expeditions_of_Russian_traveler_Viktor_Pinchuk&action=edit&redlink=1
It is not my idea to format the text of a Russian-language link in English; it was suggested by one of the administrators. Last year I did it differently. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Is there anything that needs to be corrected in the article at this point? (I'm asking because you left the chat without replying to the last message). — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My evaluation of the article hasn't materially changed. I didn't reply further to the chat in order to avoid a debate.

You have added one source in English, which does help. But there are no notes here to clarify or explain the Russian sources, which is required for both original reporting and for non-English sources.

I still think reporting on an exhibition rather than the original expedition event is less newsworthy. I also believe that being both the host of the event and the reporter covering the event is a conflict of interest, as has been mentioned in previous reviews by more than one reviewer.^{1, 2, 3, 4}

I also acknowledge that despite previous concerns of COI, these reports on your exhibitions continue to get published. I also found where a reviewer has instructed you to use English source titles[4], though I don't know why they deviated from policy. It could be due to the fact that it is OR and therefore gets more leniency (this is a problem with institutional knowledge when the 'institution' is inactive). Given my lack of experience working with OR, I have therefore given no recommendation to the reviewer beyond stating what I found.

Hopefully a reviewer will clarify things for us at some point. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright:Ok, but I didn't quite understand after reading the text on this page (both last month and this month): is adding expedition information to the article a necessary requirement, or just a recommendation that is not mandatory to follow? I'm not sure that a reviewer will clarify things for us at some point, because user Me Da Wikipedian persistently puts the article up for deletion (three times already). — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Everything about a pre-review "represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored." There is not only a plenty of wiggle room in the policies couched in verbiage such as 'generally,' 'usually,' etc, but there are also plenty of cases of reviewers publishing content counter to policies and guidelines, presumably because they believe the content is important or valuable to the project. And there is also WN:IAR (ignore all rules). So there may be a level of consensus among reviewers that your content improves wikinews and therefore is permitted a level of leniency in regards to policies and guidelines. For those reasons, I am not pressing one way or another or heavily debating it. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Done — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is actually a consensus the other way, 3 of our reviewers (Bddpaux, Heavy Water, and Cromium) have communicated that they do not intend to pass these articles. @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian:The article is not abandoned, that's not true. Some of my publications have been waiting for review several months. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe any article in the review queue can be considered abandoned by the author. To me those articles represent a level of completeness by the author and something they are waiting to have peer-reviewed. Abandonment pertains to incomplete articles, typically found in the developing queue, though not always properly labeled as such.

Articles in the review queue do go stale if not reviewed within seven days of the focal event. There is an undefined level of leniency provided for original reporting. Previous articles by this author have been successfully published over seven weeks after the event.[5] Given that precedent and the number of articles published by the author, I think its fair to leave this one in the review queue for that long unless a reviewer says otherwise. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I would disagree. Here is a reviewer admitting that publishing after 4 weeks is a mistake. Here is Cromium's suggestion to give roughly 2 1/2 weeks. @Виктор Пинчук Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear; I agree there needs to be explicit guidance on what, exactly, "leniency" means for OR vs Freshness. The notion of institutional knowledge of how things work here falls apart when those in possession of it are inactive.

"3 of our reviewers (Bddpaux, Heavy Water, and Cromium [pings added]) have communicated that they do not intend to pass these articles." If that is their stance, I think they should actively fail the articles with a clear explanation as to why so the author and everyone else understands the reasoning. Simply 'not passing' them, which I interpret as not reviewing them, comes across as passive-aggressive at best and, at worst, leaves us without clear guidance on how to proceed in the future. This approach will lead to more confusion and frustration with later articles.

Look at it from the author's point of view; reviewers continue to warn about COI, non-English sources, etc, but after some tweaking, the articles continue to pass review with comments such as 'Contains important OR and is valuable for a project like this.' That is incentive.

Even if there is a consensus, which I don't clearly see, it's still the reviewers' role to review and ultimately pass or fail the articles. As non-reviewers, it's not our place to preempt or anticipate their decisions.

The article titled "Latin American expedition of Viktor Pinchuk: meeting with the traveler took place in Yalta" was passed after spending eight weeks in the review queue. There is a clear precedent set that even eight weeks is still acceptable freshness for OR in certain cases (such as low active-reviewer count). I don't agree with it and I think it is counter-productive to leave the level of leniency vague.

The fix is for the reviewers to actively, explicitly, and clearly 'overrule' the established precedent. Until they do, I think it is our role as non-reviewers to stick to established precedent when policies and guidelines are not otherwise clear. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See my comments on the other related thread. @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: On which page can I place a request to assign "self-patrolling" status? (There is no such thing here.)— Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Виктор Пинчук there is no such thing (I think what you are talking about is that I think on Russian Wikinews some users can review there own articles) here. For very good reason. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in Russian news I am self-patrolled (and in English Wikibooks also). — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Виктор Пинчук, as far as I know, we don't have a patrollers group here. We need some, as mentioned here: Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/archives/2024/April#Additional_Checkusers_and_maybe_patrollers. They would help combat vandalism by vetting newly created pages for compliance with our rules for new pages.

I'm not sure what self-patrolling status is. Auto-patrolled status is sometimes given by patrollers to established and trusted users so that when they create new pages, they are considered 'auto-patrolled' and assumed to comply with the rules for newly created pages.

If you are hoping patrolled status will help alleviate our reviewer problem; it is unfortunately unrelated. Even if you were given 'auto-patrolled' status by a patroller, your articles would still need to be peer-reviewed.

See also: Help:Patrolling —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but this is about something else...— Виктор Пинчук (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright you and @Виктор Пинчук are talking about different things.

Michael.C.Wright is talking about a group that will soon be needed, because they plan on making it so that only certain people can see unregistered users IPs. That is this group.

Виктор Пинчук is talking about a group existing on Russian Wikinews that allows you to review your own articles, which does not exist here. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: If this article (after my correction) meets the standards, please update the {{Pre-review}} template. And if not, what exactly needs to be corrected? — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Translation of Russian-language sources

“Ethnic features of the world people” (announcement of a photo exhibition) https://dzen.ru/a/ZolWMXsBiACvwmy0

We invite everyone to a new photo exhibition by Crimean traveler and photographer/photo artist Viktor Pinchuk, which will begin at 4 p.m. on July 17, 2024. The author has prepared for visitors about two hundred creative works, shot over the past twenty years during travels and expeditions around the globe: Africa, Asia, Oceania and Latin America...

"Ethnic Features of the Peoples of the World" is the name of the photo collection, including images of aborigines in traditional clothes, adobe huts with thatched roofs, and unique national dishes.

Venue: Crimean Ethnographic Museum.

Address: Pushkin St. 18, Simferopol (Crimea).

Free admission.

16+

Viktor Pinchuk, photo exhibition about native traditions 16+ (https://zeroevent.ru/event/7606531?cls=0&from=modal)

On July 17, 2024, the Crimean Ethnographic Museum will host a photo exhibition by Russian traveler Viktor Valerievich Pinchuk.

"Ethnic Peculiarities of the World" is a collection of photographs that includes material collected by the author during his travels and expeditions to countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania and Latin America over the course of less than 20 years.

Among other things, unique shots will be presented that depict the population and dwellings of such hard-to-reach places on the planet as Karamoja (Uganda), Loiyangalani (Kenya), Bunlap on Pentecost Island (Vanuatu), the names of which will wonder even geographers.

The exhibition will be held in a virtual (digital) format, which will allow the creator of the exposition to introduce guests of the event to a much larger number of photographs than the usual format allows.

Starts at 16.00

16+

Viktor Pinchuk is familiar to photography lovers from twelve personal and three virtual exhibitions held in museums and exhibition halls of Crimea.

Personal exhibitions: https://w.wiki/8cu2 Virtual exhibitions: https://w.wiki/AYrn

Interview in "ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA" from June 5, 2024. https://rg.ru/2024/06/07/reg-ufo/dzen-turizm.html

@Michael.C.Wright:I added to the article introductory information about the background of the cultural event and two links to my articles in the sister project. Of course, I could transfer the content of these two articles here, but then it would no longer be a news report, but something in a different genre. By the way, there are much more articles, there are about 150 of them. They are certainly more interesting than a short news report. But, the news, is not an adventure novel, only a summary of events:-)

I have put a lot of work into this news material, but if correction is required, I will continue the work. I recommend reading the two articles that I have added links to. I would like you to read them. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point a reviewer's input would be best. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Except we none though :)...seriously, though would you be interested in becoming a reviewer because we could really use it. @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am but it's a circular issue (or vicious cycle?) that can't be overcome without active reviewers and admin. In other words, we need active reviewers and admin to promote users in order to fix the problem of too few active reviewers and admin. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I know...but I think you should nominate yourself for reviewer you have like 2-3 who have already said they would support it so you would probably be able to become one. It just requires one admin stopping by to give you the priviledges though... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also support it. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So 3-4 I guess... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Виктор Пинчук Michael.C.Wright now has a request for reviewer. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I would encourage you to nominate yourself for reviewer right now. We have 2 admins hanging around here right now (and Gryllida has given a place that they are actually active on)... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing this......

...and I'm certainly not publishing it. I have been very vocal about Viktor's articles like this in the past -- and another person has essentially echoed my sentiments above. There are about 5 levels of navel-gazing at play here. Historically, we have given Viktor a few inches on these, but I'm not doing it anymore. I like (most of) the photos and the topic is fairly interesting. But, what is the event (as I've said many times)? He gave a talk, which he then wrote an article about on Russian WN and then comes to this project, writing another article about a thing. He was (for lack of a better word) the focal point of the event itself, which creates about 17 Conflicts of interest in terms of neutrality. The article is about HIM giving a talk about a trip HE took and then featured HIS photographs. Again: the photos are always engaging and maybe one day we can accommodate that, but we focus on discrete news events here. I'm drawing a hard line on this one.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

....and not to get too adolescent

But: Paragraph 5 is an absolute train wreck. I mean, really? Language barriers notwithstanding....that is NOT journalism, that is 'look at all the troubles I had to deal with on my trip'.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4796398 [Not ready]

Revision 4796398 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I left a long bit on Viktor's Talk page. Feel free to jump over there. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4796398 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I left a long bit on Viktor's Talk page. Feel free to jump over there. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Notes

@Bddpaux: But nothing specific is said here... :-(
Please address other issues. & Your notes have to improve so that what is found in the article(s) can be better validated. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's over for this article. I'm sorry....if only for freshness.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4796803 [Not ready]

Revision 4796803 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is too stale. It is time to move on. Hopefully, the photos can be used on a different article, further down the road. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4796803 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is too stale. It is time to move on. Hopefully, the photos can be used on a different article, further down the road. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Notes

I have several thousand photographs, but the video took a very long time to prepare specifically for this article:-( Виктор Пинчук (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. I was able to parse about 20 words total (the acoustics of that room were far from perfect). I can't really tell what role the video plays in the larger scope of things. Again, we find our feet stuck in a very strange kind of COI "mud" so-to-speak.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: You have posted a template for additional editing of the material on the article and at the same time you are reporting that "This article is too stale". It turns out like in the Russian saying «Выкрасить и выбросить» ("To paint and throw away"). — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If the article is outdated and this is one of its main drawbacks, I suggest this option; save it in my archive without putting it on the main page. No one will see her, but she will remain... — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)