Talk:April Crisis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcvillez, Max Rowe-Sutton, Katejanslinger, HMenkhus, Hon102awu12. Peer reviewers: JWOYWOD1, Jen co16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvements forthcoming

This stub was created for improvement by students in Honors 102: Russian Revolution at DePaul University. Please consider waiting until December 2017 to make major changes. Thank you! MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Less focusing on the background and close paraphrasing

The information provided by the article was brought with a neutral standpoint, which was good. However, I believe that there was too much focus on the background, so maybe you can try trimming it down to get more attention on the crisis while also conveying what happened in the events you described in the background. One other thing I noticed that was a good number of sections of text were being closed paraphrased from the sources they came from, so it would probably be in the best interest of your article that you rewrite these sections in your own words. --JWOYWOD1 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Balance between background/April Crisis and writing style

Overall I thought that this article did a decent job at hitting all the points of the April Crisis. I do agree with the above user that there is a lot of focus on background, but I think as you fill in more about the crisis the balance should even out. I do think the sections "Pressure from the Petrograd Soviet" and "Appeal to All Peoples in the World" in particular could be combined under the "Appeal" section, as having them separate seems a little redundant. You could also link more to a few other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on dual power. You also might want to check sentence structure throughout, just to make sure everything is as clear as possible. Wikipedia articles tend to use short, to the point sentences, overall I thought things were clear, but a few sentences seemed to be a bit long and have some emphasis that make the article sound less like it is an encyclopedia, but more like it is from an essay. Jen co16 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions- general, grammer, wording

Very good article! Nice use of detail and organization. Here are some comments on grammar and word choice in some of the sections that I think you could change or improve. Also, maybe a different way of formatting the events section because it seems like there should be more written under those big headlines, but you might not need to write more, just change the format a bit, or adding more the events. Possibly add a closing section with implications. Maybe more event focused instead of so background focused.

Beginning section Add what type of date April 18 etc at beginning of article, like “all dates are given in…” Maybe take out comma in the last line of 1st paragraph

“Background” section “Halves” sounds little odd, maybe “dual parts” or “parts” or another adjective Would suggest “heavily involved” or even “entangled” embroiled sounds little too uncommon for Wikipedia

“Feb Rev” section Maybe just put “working class” not “the” so it doesn’t sound like all the women On “that” day, keep it past tense

“Pressure from Petrograd Soviet” section Should be no comma after “and” (second part is not a complete sentence phrase)

“Declaration of war aims” section Add “but” before “rather” in (currently a sentence splice)

“Mass demonstrations” section Not sure “--” are Wikipedia-like, especially doubling them, maybe just “-” or a different sentence structure

Suggestions for Improvement, Peer Review Feedback

Overall, the article maintains a neutral standpoint and provides factually accurate information. I think the writing style could be cleaned up a bit. Use specific language and keep sentences to the point. The first line the the summary section is too wordy. I don't think you need to add that the April Crisis was "part of" the Russian Revolution. I think you can keep it concise by just re-wording some sentences (simple proof-reading). For example, the first line could be "The April Crisis was a political crisis that unfolded during April of 1917 in response to a series of public controversies".

Secondly, there is a minor problem of balance within this article. In the summary section, for example, I don't think it's necessary to include the details of the Milyukov note or the bit about Sukhanov. I think that information should be included within "Events".

This brings me to my next point, which is the organization of this article; you've divided the article into the main categories of "Background" and "Events", but some of the subjects under events do not feel categorically related.

I think including background is a good idea, but the background section should not be longer than the actual April Crisis. Not all of the details that you have included are necessary to the understanding of the April Crisis. I suggest thinking critically over what actually informs the reader about the context of the events of April, and what is extraneous information that should be saved for its own Wikipedia article. Day by day details in the background section, for instance, are not totally necessary.

Regarding the "Events" section, I think you could probably re-organize these sections and possibly bring together some of the smaller sections. You could perhaps change "events" to just "April Crisis", under which there could be "Controversy" (in which you describe the Declaration of War Aims, the April Theses, and the Milyukov Note,) and "Demonstrations". After "April Crisis" (or within it) I suggest adding a section for "Aftermath", where you can provide the information regarding the reshuffling of the government.

Final, miscellaneous points of feedback: please proofread. There are unfinished sentences and other typos in the article. Take out the doubt hyphens (formatting issue). I suggest removing the need for any en dashes in your sentences at all. Also, be consistent with old style and new style dates throughout the article. If you're going to show both, show both, otherwise inform the reader in some way which style you are using through the whole article. Wikipedia has a manual page about O.S/N.S usage in Wikipedia articles.

Hon102awu12 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)