Jump to content

Talk:6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Withdrawn/closed

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Ruling party (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This interests me a great deal. I recently wrote about the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and another article about the Lao communists. I will have a review for you by the end of the day. Before I started the review, I made a quick copyedit to fix the language. Please take a look at my edits @Tomobe03:--Ruling party (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed an article, so I hope you bear with me! --Ruling party (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I've copyedited it again. On the whole, there are some areas of improvements. I will recheck it tomorrow for some mistakes :) But I will give you one advice. It would help if you were a bit more consistent. In the lead, you write "6th Congress" (that is what the article is called) and in the body, you wrote Sixth Congress. It also confused me in the beginning that you referred to the communist party as both KPJ and SKJ (you need to pick one - I picked one for you). --Ruling party (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Very good. I have only one comment. A communist society can't introduce liberal policies - a communist is by definition anti-liberal (at least the Tito brand). A communist can, however, introduce policies that liberalize society and which leads to liberalization. Important here. Western/liberal democratic scholars have conceived the term liberalization to describe policies that make communist societies a tiny bit more similar to our societies. It describes in this sense change which we would define as a positive direction. However, Tito did not introduce liberal reforms.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My main contention is that its too short. Her's my reasoning:
  1. Somebody who knows nothing about the topic should be able to understand why things were happening, why they did what they did, and the result. I get that they reformed because of Stalin, but why didn't they chose North Korea, the Ceauceascu road, Dubcek, Xi Jinping el cetra el cetra??? Why these reforms?
  2. The article states that old policies were put to an end... But what were the old policies? I know, since I know something about this topic, that it was state-led Stalinist central planning. But not everyone knows this.
  3. What is workers' self-management? The article says that the 6th Congress approved it, but it's never explained what workers self-management actually was. For all I know - from reading this article - it could be freewheeling capitalism or Zimbabwe like despotism.
  4. What was the agenda of the 6th Congress? I'm guessing it was 1) Political Report of the 5th Central Committee, Report of the 5th Central Auditing Commission, electing the 6th Central Committee, amending the party charter, approval of five-year plan and approval of new policies... I know more than the average person than this, but the article doesn't say anything about it.
  5. Changes were made to the party charter, but what changes? Were things replaced? Were things removed? Did the party get a radically new charter?
  6. First, a party congress doesn't elect the party leader. The 1st Plenary Session of the newly-elected Central Committee elects its head, the politburo, secretariat, etc. This should be stated, but it is instead treated as the same.
  7. How were the party delegates elected? Were there multi-candidate elections or Stalinist election with one candidate per party unit?
  8. It lasted for five days... Was this one of those party congresses members could debate policies? How were the proceedings organised? Was it a Brezhnevite congress in which the leaders spoke, and the delegates listened? Or were their actual discussions?
  9. I don't know if it's true of Yugoslavia, but normally the Central Committee meetings preceding the congress are usually quite intense. The political elite discusses their proposal before its officially announced.
  10. A draft proposal of the political report is normally, in every communist society I know of, sent for discussion in all party units before the congress. If not the party drafts at least some general pointers... Did they do it here? If so, what did they state and discuss?
  11. The composition of the Central Committee, Central Auditing Commission, the Executive Committee and the Secretariat (not mentioned) are barely discussed. Who were the new members? Were they state apparatchiks? Were most reelected? Since, as you wrote, the party would quickly split over ideological questions later on... Does this mean that the Executive Committee was equally split along reformist and anti-reformist line? Or was it pro and anti-Tito? --Ruling party (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is really up to you @Tomobe03:. This is an interesting article, and I hope you chose to continue working on it. If you do, I will assist by copyediting the text :)

Give me a signal on what you plan to do! --Ruling party (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time and effort to review the article.

Regarding the KPJ/SKJ abbreviations - the party formally changed its name (and abbreviation) at the congress, and the change is noted in the prose. It would therefore be incorrect to use only one abbreviation.

I'll respond on other issues you have raised shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruling party:, I had to check there for a moment, but it seems to me that some of the complaints are not consistent with WP:WIAGA, i.e. GA criteria. You obviously have a very good understanding of the article topic, but (at least some of) the issues you raise are more likely needed for FA than GA. For instance, there is no requirement in the GA criteria regarding article being too short.

There certainly is room for some improvement, but per WP:SUMMARY, the content meant for the article on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia should not be repeated here.

Also, I'm fine with addition of redlinks IF they meet general notability criteria, but I'm far from convinced that "6th Executive Committee" meets WP:GNG.

I agree that the things you brought up would improve the article, but I'm not quite sure that these may be required at this (GA) level. For example, look at the What the Good article criteria are not essay which says "Good articles are "satisfactory" or "decent" articles, not great articles. The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria."

On the other hand, I would hate to see a nominating editor (i.e. me) directing the reviewer in any way because that would be wrong. In conclusion, I don't think there is any point in pursuing further. I'll revise the article at some point to address some of the issues you raised. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03:
  1. You're probably right in that some of the problems here might be relevant to FA more than GA. Still, my point here isn't necessarily the length but rather that I don't really understand from reading this article what was actually going on. This matters for all articles, whether they are stubs or FAs. That is, I think it fails point three of WP:GACN.
  2. I'm saying you need to expound on anything.. but for instance, the "The 6th Congress approved the policy of workers' self-management, a form of management in which the workers have a say in production." Doesn't need to be more than this, but at least the reader can read this article without jumping back and forth between articles. The same goes for old policies; what were the old policies? Its like me saying "I was able to buy a Tesla after he I changed my accountant." Most people would, understandably, wonder how change of accountant influenced by decision to buy a Tesla. My point here is this; you're telling half the story and there the article is not broad in its coverage.
  3. As for the 6th Executive Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, see 19th Politburo of the Communist Party of China and the 22nd Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (which is an FL) for instance. The Politburo/Executive Committee functioned as the "communist cabinet". You wouldn't say that the current Croatian prime minister's government cabinet wouldn't meet WP:GNG would you? Besides—I've never written such an article–I believe that you will have the chance to summarise the basic decisions and leading conflict that took place at the time. I will also add that English WP currently has two articles on elected central committees of the Yugoslav party (check the party template).
  4. The grammar I would say is still an issue.

Notability of the 6th exec comm has nothing to do with notability of the 19th politburo of the CPC (see WP:OTHER).

As I said, maybe it's better to let this one go, at least for the time being.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03:
  1. Of course. But saying that the Executive Committee, the leading organ of state and society of Yugoslavia from 52 to 58 isn't notable is far-fetched, especially when 11 out of 12 individuals have articles. But this is not really related to the article; we can disagree to disagree :)
  2. I've asked the editors at GAN. Maybe someone will respond. I'm fairly certain of my position, but we'll see. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm wrong :) --Ruling party (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm grateful for your helpful pointers what is missing in the article. Some of them can be addressed from limited reliable sources on the topic, some cannot. However, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with a review pointing out some of the issues should be overlooked because they probably belong to FA (as you also noted above) and not GA because there are always questions where broad scope ends and comprehensive begins. That would be as if the nominator is deflecting and directing the review instead of the reviewer - and that should not happen. Other editors are welcome to offer their opinion, but it ultimately must be up to you as the reviewer: If you feel the scope is too narrow, or that any other criterion is far from met, you are more than justified to fail the nomination.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - I'm withdrawing the nomination for the above reasons (per WP:GAN/I#N3).--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]

Hi, as per WT:GAN, I do have some additional thoughts. First, I think whilst the above does show that more could be made, I don't think the article isn't suitably broad. It's worth mentioning that BROAD simply means that it covers all the basics, not that it's a comprehensive study. That said, I do worry that a novice reader (such as myself) would have some issues understanding what is being talked about here. I'd suggest tightening up the lede a bit, and having a better introductory para.

Thanks for the comments. RL stepped in - I hope to be back editing (and responding to your comments) tomorrow--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed a few of the above issues, but I'd need some more info about the building issue (see above). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Added info on the building too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party - this is still your GA review, but I think the broad criteria is mostly met, and I've added a couple more points that I think make it a bit more readable. I suggest a promotion, but this is yours to close, if you wish. If you have further knowledge on the subject, might I suggest taking a look and helping the article fill these minor holes after the review is closed to help improve the encyclopaedia? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry late reply :P I think it's best that you to the passing. I still don't consider this a good article. To take an example, the title is "6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" but he writes "sixth congress". Is the article wrongly titled? --Ruling party (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title is capitalised per MOS:TITLECASE. The ordinal number 6th is spelled out per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:SPELL09. If you think the article should be named differently, there is always the process to propose to move the article to a new name - but that has nothing to to with GA review. Ruling party, do you have any specific MOS issue that could be addressed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party, I find it problematic that you say things like "I still don't consider this a good article" instead of pointing to a specific actionable mismatch with GA criteria, and ask should a number be spelled or word capitalised instead of pointing to a specific MOS rule the article is not in compliance with. This way it seems you are judging the article on subjective rather than objective criteria. In the above review you have mainly complained about breadth of scope and after disagreeing with me, you went to get a 3rd opinion. It seems to me you got one opinion supporting my view re scope. You have complained about spelling out the number 6 and/or title capitalisation and I have just pointed out relevant MOS rules supporting present solutions. Other than that I'm left with your view that this is not a GA for unspecified reasons. --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomobe03 You've improved the article a great deal, but I still don't feel it covers the subject. There is more information on "Background" and "Aftermath" then the actual congress itself. I still feel it fails in its coverage on what the article is about.
However, the writing has improved considerably. I can see that you've worked considerably on it the last couple of days. The flow of the text has dramatically improved.
That's why I said @Lee Vilenski: could take over. I will fail this if the coverage does not improve, but I believe you can improve this by the end of the week. The question is; are you willing to increase the article scope and coverage? If yes, I'll give you time to improve and supervise. If not I'll fail it. --Ruling party (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party have you even taken time to review the GA criteria - specifically criteria 3a and 3b (at WP:WIAGA)? Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion if you are perfectly willing to proceed on a personal whim instead? I am aware that this is your first review ever and that everyone has to learn sometime, but I see no point in stubbornly ignoring established review criteria because (as you pointed out above) you think you know better. As stated above, you have not pointed out any GA criteria mismatch except complaining about the scope of the article and then ignored the 3rd opinion you solicited on your own initiative. (Including the GAN talk advice from uninvolved editors to which your reply was "Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently".) Since I cannot determine what is your personal preference for the scope except that some of it (as you said above) really belongs to FA, I see no point in dragging out this utterly unhelpful review. Please fail this article already so it could be reviewed later on objective criteria.

Lee Vilenski thank you very much for your remarks. Even though your opinion was rejected by the reviewer, I feel that the article improved as a result of yourpinput. --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: You keep saying its my personal whim, but the WP GA Criteria says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" which I don't think it does... And instead of saying "OK" you're saying I havn't read the GA criteria... --Ruling party (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruling party, the 3a cirterion says also says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" with footnote that "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." i.e. you neglect a very important part of the criterion.
The 3b criterion says "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." so including most of the things you point out would go into unnecessary detail and run against this. For example, list of members of the Central Auditing Commission is not a main aspect of the topic in any universe.
You disagree on interpretation of these criteria with the nominator and with the 3rd opinion editor - as the entirely inexperienced reviewer - and yet insist on your personal interpretation... so yes, this is on your whim.
I guess when you said at WT:GAN you said "@Whiteguru, Lee Vilenski, and Buidhe: Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently :)" you really meant but not just now, just because so it really is on your whim.
As I already asked (and you ignored the question) Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion on precisely the issue your complain about if you are perfectly willing to ignore it? It sure looks like it's just because you don't like the opinion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but in my defence @Tomobe03: I haven't asked for a comprehensive article. What I wrote over is that you've written more about the background and aftermath of the congress than the actual congress itself. THe problem with the congress is its bare. I'm calling for comprehensiveness, but I'm calling for a basic overview of the proceedings and happening which I feel this article fails. Do you have any more comments? --Ruling party (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ruling party, you are now explicitly saying you are calling for comprehensiveness even after I just pointed out that the GA criteria explicitly says "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles." You are obvously unwilling or unable to implement clear GA scope criteria and prefer to "wing" it. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: I wrote "I haven't asked for comprehensiveness". This is a breach of WP:BADFAITH. I'm failing this if you don't actually have any reedming comments coming.
Just a tips. When someone says it can improve you don't need to become super defence and accusative.. You can say "OK. I don't know if I wholly agree with you, but I'll do some extra work". --Ruling party (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I misread the comment, but you in fact ask for only comprehensiveness thereby failing to comply with the criteria.
Of course I'm defensive of my nom. And of course I'm curious about why you continue to evade the question of why bother asking for 3rd opinion you ignore since you continue to evade it - especially when it is specifically dealing with the scope... while dishing out the accusation of bad faith.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re "When someone says it can improve you don't need to become super defence and accusative" - please note that the 3rd opinion editor gave specific actionable comments, which are addressed in full. But those were within GA scope.
In summation, I found your review quite unhelpful. I know it's only your first attempt at GA review and that your knowledge of the topic may have tempted you to ignore rules and press for personal wishes regarding what you think is significant in the article. You have asked for and received feedback at WT:GAN regarding your reviewing - I only wish you would take their advice. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest closing this discussion if you don't think it meets the criteria? The article can be re-nominated at any point, and might I suggest it is? Right now the reason you seem to be unhappy seems to revolve around the section on the Congress being shorter than other sections, which isn't really part of the guidelines, nor something particularly actionable. I attempted to step in and offer some advice, but if you ask for help, are too headstrong to listen to it, perhaps it is better to disengage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight days have gone since the reviewer has posted any actionable comment or indeed failed the review as threatened on multiple occasions. Can I assume the reviewer has abandoned/withdrawn from the review?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously isn't going anywhere - it's been over two weeks with nothing from the reviewer. I'll ping Ruling party just in case they've forgotten about this, but if we don't hear anything in a day or two I'll be glad to take over the review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I've failed it. --Ruling party (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2021 (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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this GAN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I start reviewing, I'd like to note for the record that I don't consider myself to be bound by the previous nomination. There were a number of objections to the review's fidelity to the criteria (see here), and the nominator was thus within his rights to let the article fail and then immediately renominate it. In any event, good article reviews aren't subject to stare decisis: Subsequent nominations are conducted on a blank slate. I will thus consider the points raised by the previous reviewer, but I will exercise my independent judgment in assessing the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
  • I've done a bit of minor copyediting, none of which should change the meaning of what you are saying.
  • Unlike the previous reviewer, I'm really not that concerned about broadness. There clearly hasn't been a whole lot of scholarship on this particular congress, and so it's inappropriate to expect a lengthy article. (In addition, courtesy of WP:GANOT, "Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion." See also How Brown Saw the Baseball Game, which is a featured article at half the size of this article.) There are some expansions that can be made, but generally speaking this article is quite close to meeting the criteria.
  • All sources are reliable; I'll check the specific references at a later time.
  • put on the shelf - that means "delayed; put on hiatus". I think you mean something like "superseded; replaced" but I want to be sure.
  • Do your sources mention how was the congress convened? Was it a regularly scheduled meeting, or did someone have to call it into session? If the latter, who? Why?
  • Any idea how the delegates to the congress were chosen?
    • The sources I have do not say, but I'll take a look around. Normally that was done by the basic party organisation(s) choosing one delegate per 385 (in this case) members, normally one "suggested" from "above" or by a prominent member among their ranks. Let me get back to you on this and convening (it was nothing extraordinary in terms of convening, but again, not much in the sources I have).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have checked the sources already used in this article and others listed in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia article and found nothing. Searches of Ceeol, Hrčak and Jstor also got me nowhere. I have gained access to a 1977 History of the SKJ/KPJ by Morača, Bilandžić and Stojanović and they do not mention anything. Grzunov (cited in the article) notes that the party charter envisaged convening of the congress once every four years - and since the previous one was held in 1948, it appears to be a regularly scheduled thing - but this is virtually all I managed to source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "Background" section seems more like it belongs in the "Decisions" section - it seems to summarize what happened at the congress more than anything else. Any particular reason why it's there?
  • The congress adopted two resolutions – on the role of the SKJ and submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission. - This sentence confuses me. Does it mean that the two resolutions both related to the role of the SKJ? If so, I would get rid of the dash and explain what the two resolutions were. If it means something else, you might want to just reword the sentence.
  • Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet. - I think a word is missing here.

I'll have more to say later. Until then, thanks for your persistence with this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to wikilink rapprochement since many readers may be unfamiliar with the term.
  • I found this journal article, which suggests that the 6th Congress barred all religious people from party membership. That might be an interesting addition, although I'm not sure if the site is paywalled.
  • they instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress...Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet threat - the sources (Haig at 139 and Lilly at 213) seem to indicate that it was Stalin's death that reduced the Soviet threat, thereby making further democratization unnecessary. The article seems to suggest that Tito cut back on democratization to reduce the Soviet threat. Am I reading the sources correctly?
    • Stalin's death was a major contributor to de-escalation of Soviet-Yugoslav tensions, but it did not mean automatic normalisation of relations. In mid-1953 when the second plenary session took place the countries had yet to exchange ambassadors (happened in late 1953). Khruschev signalled to Tito his intent to restore normal relations in July 1954 and that formally took place a year later with Khruschev's visit to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavs (i.e. Tito) apparently felt in the period that there is sufficiently credible Soviet military threat to Yugoslavia and went ahead with establishing the Balkan Pact in 1953 and Bled Agreement in 1954 with Greece and Turkey. Now, I don't have a source saying explicitly "Tito felt Soviet military threat credible in 1953-1955", but establishing a military alliance with two NATO members seems to point to this conclusion. I added a couple of sentences to clarify this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my concern is more that there isn't a source for "Tito assum[ed] that such course of action (i.e. democratization) would reduce the Soviet threat." You cite Haug, but she is saying only that Tito "predict[ed] that this (i.e. the death of Stalin) would decrease the Soviet security threat to the Yugoslavs" and that he thus had no reason to pursue reforms. Is there a source that says that Tito's rollback of democratization was intended to reduce the Soviet threat? (Sorry for the inartful wording of my previous comment.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sixth congress also signalled a decline in critical discourse. - you might want to elaborate on that. Why did this decline occur?

Further comments to come. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Territorial basic organisations were set up to replace the Communist Party of the Soviet Union-styled party cells. Was this just a new name or was it a substantive change? If the former, I'd clarify it; if the latter, I'd briefly explain what the difference was.
    • Not mere name change, but not exactly spectacular difference. A cell could be set up as a party organisation within say a factory, and now such cells were merged on territorial basis (generally city or municipality). The source I have used right now does not offer this clarification explicitly, so I'll have a look around for another clarifying the change.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found a source describing post-1952 structure and explaining that the basic organisation could be subdivided into cells, but that the instruction to reduce bureaucracy was implemented (at local level) by abolishing the cells. As regards the territorial organisation of the party, I added a passage on this (from Grzunov as a new source): In short, 1) the basic orgs could have cells; 2) the basic orgs were grouped territorially (by municipality) 3) the municipal committee could override any decision of the basic org or determine the matter in advance (unless the municipal comm ignored the matter); this relationship was replicated on the levels of the municipal to district comm, district to republican (e.g. SKH) central committee and the latter's relationship to the SKJ central committee. I assume that Ramet is saying that the party became more territorialised because such structure and fewer administration officials would make it impossible for each superior level to review many day-to-day matters which would thus remain territorial (i.e. municipal, district, republican) - but I have no source outlining this. In order to avoid making a synthesis on my own, I opted to add sourced explanation of the structure, the party directive to reduce (and actual reduction) of professional party staff and overall abolition of party cells so readers may or may not conclude the same.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It re-elected Tito as the General Secretary of the SKJ - The linked article says that the Central Committee appointed him to this position, not the congress. What do your sources say? I can think of a number of possibilities.
  • The party Articles - are these the same as "the party charter" mentioned in the subsequent paragraph? If so, you might want to use the same term (charter is clearer, in my view) and/or move the sentences together.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph beginning The party charter specified that basic organisations - This paragraph just seems a bit out of place - it doesn't seem to pertain to any particular decision of the 6th congress - and I'm not sure how much of it is ultimately necessary to understanding the post-6th congress changes. Perhaps it would be better to just eliminate this paragraph (sorry) and change the aftermath section to say something like "Seeking to reduce bureaucracy, lower-level party officials consolidated the functions of smaller organisations (known as party cells) into larger local and municipal districts." You could then provide some of the additional background in an explanatory note, which would then at least be adjacent to the relevant content. This may not be strictly speaking necessary for GA purposes, but I think it would be helpful nonetheless.
    • Eliminated. I'd like to think about the proposed note a bit. As you pointed out, the structure is not really relevant for understanding of the post-congress events. It is not relevant for understanding of the events at the congress either, so I'd like to think some more if it would be better off as a future addition to the League of Communists of Yugoslavia article or here or nowhere really.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's fair - there isn't really any background needed to understand the sentence as revised. The League's article would be a logical place to put it, although I'm not sure what section it would belong in. In any event, that's an issue for another day. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, the central committee instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress. - Any specifics? A reader might be interested in the particular policies reversed. (Of course, don't worry if the sources don't say.)
    • The sources are vague on this - probably because the declared objectives changed from time to time. Ramet notes that the main reversals appeared to be the decision to retain the central role of the SKJ in the country and to abandon the policy of "withering of the state" (state apparatus was expected to "wither" away as redundant as the ideal communist society is achieved). Ramet also notes that the group advocating slower pace of reforms (those not reversed, presumably) prevailed for the time being.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the lead that "The congress...discussed the nature of Yugoslav federalism." The body suggests that this discussion arose afterwards. Was this issue discussed during the congress itself? If so, you might want to add it to the "decisions" section.
    • No, it was not formally discussed since it was not for the SKJ to discuss (even though the same people leading the SKJ would decide on the constitution in a different role). The lede was incorrectly summarized in this respect, so I changed it and added clarification in the aftermath regarding the nature of the main gripe for party leadership (Kardelj as he was mostly the principal author of all subsequent constitutional amendments).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is thanks to you making good progress, and we should be able to finish this up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. I really appreciate your pointers because I believe the article quality will greatly improve through this process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence beginning The most significant turnaround was in relation to the proclaimed... - the wording here is a bit confusing: it's not immediately clear what change actually occurred. Might I suggest something along the lines of "Most significantly, the committee began to backtrack on the congress's plans for a reduction in the SKJ's role in government and for a gradual "withering of the state". Furthermore..." (That sentence might be a bit unwieldy, so by all means feel free to adapt it as you like.)
  • ...the role of constituent republics and status of various peoples in Yugoslavia. The page you cite doesn't seem to discuss this: it looks like the section on federalism starts on page 140. While you're at it, you might consider elaborating on the nature of the debate, i.e. trying to reconcile a desire for increased national unity with a need for equality among the republics/ethnic groups.
  • The congress adopted two resolutions – one on the tasks and the role of the SKJ and another on endorsing all reports submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission. I'm not sure if we really need to know about the second resolution: it doesn't look like it had any lasting significance, being more procedural than anything else. What do your sources say about the first resolution? I presume it endorsed the ideals that you discussed in the first paragraph of the "decisions" section (e.g. director into educator; minimizing bureaucracy), but if the sources don't mention it we of course can't include it. But if the sources permit it, it would be useful to clarify what precisely this resolution involves.
    • I looked for anything on the contents of the resolution and found McClellan's chapter in Vucinich. While he does not say anything directly like "resolution to do X and Y", he does specify several decisions as well as reasoning behind some of them. I added that information to appropriate places in the prose and then realised that if there are two resolutions - one procedural (approving reports, electing officials etc) and another substantive, the latter must include all other decisions explicity or by reference. Sadly, there seems to be no source to confirm this. However, I then realised that if the entire sentence mentioning the two resolutions is removed entirely - nothing is lost in terms of understanding of the topic... so I removed it as redundant. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The congress approved workers' self-management and the change of policy led to a wider discussion about the nature of Yugoslav federalism... - this seems to suggest that workers' self-management specifically led to the discussion on federalism. Is that what you meant? By the way, you might consider adding a bit more to the lead (e.g. on reducing bureaucracy and disapproving of religious activities) in light of the substantial expansions to the body of the article.
  • Sentence beginning By introducing workers' councils in late 1949... - This is a long sentence, and it might be more readable if you split it into two.
  • ...although it was explicitly noted that the autonomy would allow them full independence - do you mean that the autonomy would not allow them full independence? If you do mean "would allow", you might say something like "although it was promised..."
  • instructed the party members to control the councils...difficult to replace managers. It's not really clear who these councils and managers are. Could you clarify?
  • The SKJ deemed the national question solved and did not address the inter-republican relations as the national question or a potential point of contention. The wording here is a bit off - I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. I think something just needs to be reworded.
    • I had another go at it. Basically, the SKJ deemed the national question dominating pre-war Yugoslav internal politics solved in 1945 and the congress therefore only discussed the intra-national relations in terms of increasing Yugoslav unity through the idea of different national cultures combining to create a Yugoslav culture. Unlike in the pre-war context, this was expected to happen without any pressure from the authorities and without resistance - as it was assumed that the national question of defining/developing/preserving/etc national identities was a non-issue anymore.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we pretty much have all necessary content included now. Once a few issues with the prose are resolved, we'll be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You probably should clarify once what the "basic party organisations" are, for instance by adding "local-level" to On the other hand, the basic party organisations.... In the lead, where technical wording is discouraged, you might just write "local party organisations".

Yes, that's only one comment. I'll run through the references and give the article another thorough read-through, which should enable me to promote the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like some of the sentences in the lead are a bit out of order. For instance, However, some of the sixth congress's adopted resolutions were reversed when relations with the Soviet Union were normalised is followed immediately by The congress approved workers' self-management.... Jumping back and forth between the congress's actions and the aftermath probably could confuse the reader. Perhaps you could just go through and make sure that each sentence in the lead is in the same order as its corresponding section in the body?
  • Sentence beginning The congress approved workers' self-management... - this is a long sentence, and it probably ought to be broken up. You might send the part about workers' self-management up to the previous paragraph (which would help deal with the issue above) while keeping the rest of it where it is.
  • This is definitely not a GA issue, but it might improve the quality of the prose. In the third paragraph of the lead, there are six consecutive sentences starting with the word "the". You might consider rewording a few of the sentences to start with a different word, although that is of course much more of a matter for FA.
  • ...by keeping Yugoslavia neutral in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. - the cite should be to page 140, I believe.

While I certainly hope you implement these suggestions, the truth of the matter is that the article meets the GA criteria as-is. I thus am content to pass the article at this time, for the reasons elucidated below. Your impressive work on this article is to be commended, and I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

In my judgment, this article meets the GA criteria.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose is in my view sufficient to meet the criterion: I think a reasonable reader would have little trouble understanding what the article is driving at. There certainly are still some wrinkles to iron out, and (as is the case with most articles) a thorough copy-edit from WP:GOCE/REQ might be beneficial in improving the prose's quality.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The sources are clearly reliable books and journal articles. Inline citations are abundant, and a spot-check of the accessible sources shows that the article accurately reflects the cited content.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The article addresses most everything discussed in the sources, and so it easily passes the rather loose "broadness" criterion.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All pictures are free-use.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time to review this article and for the comments and pointers highlighting problems. I believe the article has been improved considerably as a result of this process. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:6th_Congress_of_the_League_of_Communists_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1197083695"