Talk:Leonid Brezhnev/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I will be reviewing this article and have already done some copy editing. Generally, I think it is a well written, well referenced article but suffers from some copy editing issues, such as the use of contractions, overly casual language (language that is not encyclopedic in tone) and overlinking. I alphabetized the references and corrected other errors as I came across them. Please feel free to revert any of my errors. I will continue through the article in the next few days. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done "His tenure as leader has often been criticized, however, for marking the beginning of a period of economic stagnation and initiating the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which would eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991." - perhaps this sentence could be reworded so that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not presented as a major reason leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Removal of Khrushchev

Done "and no light-headed schemes which had been a hallmark during Khrushchev's tenure" - is "no light-headed schemes" a quote? (If not, the language may be too casual and not encyclopedic in tone.)
Done There are several links that need disambiguation: See [1]

Xtzou (Talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Done "His tenure as leader has often been criticized for marking the beginning of a period of economic stagnation, overlooking serious economic problems and exaggerating the stagnation with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which together would eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991." - I am having trouble with this sentence. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan exaggerated the stagnation? I am not clear on this. My perception, as well as the editor commenting below, is that the failures of the general Soviet economy led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Just like the Vietnam War, however ill judged, did not lead to the collapse of the U.S. Xtzou (Talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnation

There is a {{citation needed}} tag under Stagnation. I have look through the references and there does not seem to be mention of the war being related, e.g. [2]. Xtzou (Talk) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the Soviet Union out-produced the United States in heavy industry during the Brezhnev era." - what is the significance of this sentence?
- That the economy hadn't collapsed yet; as seen in the late 1980s.
It seems to me that most of the sections under Domestic policies refer to the Stagnation one way or another, or were causes/results of it. I wonder if the article does not need some reorganization. The Brezhnev stagnation was an important phenomena, yet it is not clearly addressed in the article.
- Can you be a bit clearer on what you mean is not clearly adressed with the Brezhnev stagnation in the article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not insisting on that - just a suggestion. The more I read about the Brezhnev stagnation, the more confused I become. Some authors appear to use the term to cover everything wrong with the Soviet Union at the time. I am surprised how little has been written about Brezhnev. Perhaps you have a clearer idea? Xtzou (Talk) 21:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Brezhnev stagnation refers to the stagnation initiated by Brezhnev and lasted until the collapse of the USSR itself, however, this view varies. I agree with you, very little has been written about Brezhnev, and what is written about him is mostly about the stagnation which he iniated, seeing that Brezhnev rule wasn't all that "exciting".
    - And as you noted, most of who covers Brezhnev talk only refer to him when talking about the economic stagnation. To be a bit blunt, the stagnation is, at the present, his major accomplishment and this accomplishment, is seen as some as proof that communism is/was an unworthy challenger to capitalism. It should also be noted, when people talk about how bad the country was economically, they always talk about the Brezhnev stagnation and not the economic performance before that. By the end of the day it all comes down to who lost the Cold War, and that was communism and therefor some authors tend to write more of the negative effects of communism and Brezhnev then the good stuff, if ya know what i mean. --TIAYN (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My understanding of Khrushchev was that he set up some of the major agricultural practices, like the heavy planting of corn in imitation of Iowa farmers, the faulty logic of which came to roast during Brezhnev's era. Of course, Brezhnev apparently made no effort to reevaluate these failing policies. But Brezhnev did reverse some of the liberalization of Khrushchev. Also, Khrushchev got out there among the people and engaged them, which Brezhnev seems to have had no interest in doing. Xtzou (Talk) 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, Brezhnev re-versed most, if not all of Khrushchev's policies, even those who showed signs of actually helping the stagnating economy, most notably seen in his mechanization, agriculture and light and heavy industry reforms. As the article says, Khrushchev was oustered because of these reforms by the conservative communists within the CPSU. Brezhnev was elected General Secretary on the slogan "no experimentation"; something he stayed true to until his dying days. The Prague Spring also had a major effect on the communist leadership and led to the word reform being seen as revisionist and anti-communistic. This among many other things led the communist leadership to become even more conservative. The reformist wing, already weakened by the removal of Khrushchev and the Prague Spring got their final blow at the rejection of the Kosygin reform; which was seen by some as anti-communistic because it stood for further decentralization of the economy.

It would be right to say that Brezhnev ruled the USSR when it was under a period of self-isolating itself, which eventually led to its downfall.--TIAYN (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added all the information i could find on early economic growth, the stagnation started in 1973. I've found some information on "Reforms- and counter reforms" should i create a section for this? If you don't reply I'll do so. --TIAYN (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Did Brezhnev make any contributions regarded as positive now? Xtzou (Talk) 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, three-quarters of all good things he did happened before 1973, this means that the rest of his rule was 'crappy' in comparison. I'll add the section about it tomorrow, is that okay? --TIAYN (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You seem to have a good handle on all this. Xtzou (Talk) 18:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To late :(, Google Books decided to remove the pages from that particular book :C --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized the article to make it clearer what the Brezhnev stagnation was... To sum it up, it was everything from repression, to economic and social stagnation, conservative communism, lazyness and technological backwardness in regards to the West. --TIAYN (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Done I still don't understand why the "stagnation" is discussed in so many different places. Why under Soviet society is there a section Social stagnation and then another section called The "static" society. Shouldn't these be combined?
I'm also worried that the article is excessively negative, given that the Soviet Union reached is apogee under Brezhnev. Xtzou (Talk) 21:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific... You are right, the Soviet Union reached its peak in military and global influence but all those combined led to a social and economic stagnation at home which would consume the country and eventually lead to its demise. Thats the easiest way to put it.

At the same time, the leader himself, degenerated mentally and wasn't even able to write letters before he died, i am not talking about a year her, but three to four. While i do understand your worries... To get the article more neutral, should i create a section solely about military and the country's global influence under Brezhnev? Cause it could solve most of the uneutral problems you are talking about, right?

My final comment being that while it is true that the Soviet Union reached its apogee under Brezhnev, the apogee was only for the military and diplomatic relations, nothing else. --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Although I consider the lead to be very good, it does not reflect the article per WP:Lead. Please ensure that there is a summary section in the lead for each of the major sections of the article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written another pharagraph, is that good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Well written

B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]