Talk:Manifesto of the Sixteen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Alright. Excellent research. A very engaging article. I see that the bibliography has been reformatted, which I think works a lot better. I enjoyed reading about this Manifesto. A little something about WWI that I wasn't aware of. I have no problems with the facts. The topic seems to be broadly covered if not comprehensively. Here are some copyediting points:

1. As such, Woodcock notes Kropotkin came to distaste the growth of Marxism, "German ideas", and augmented this with an interest in the French Revolution, which Woodcock referred to as "a kind of adoptive patriotism". Maybe use dislike rather than distaste, or even despise if it's warranted?
2. Months later, Kropotkin allowed a letter he wrote to be included in a October 1914 issue of Freedom. Small spelling mistake. Perhaps: "in an October 1914 issue of..."?
3. Very good captions for the images.
4. As such, he claimed that pacifism and tactics such as the general strike were unnecessary in ending the war, which should be prosecuted until Germany was defeated. This sentence means to say that the war should continue until Germany is defeated, rather than coming to a conclusion via pacifism and tactics. It needs to be rewritten a bit. Maybe even use the verb "pursue" rather than "prosecute".
5. The Bolsheviks quickly responded to Kropotkin's militarism in a bid for political capital. Attacking Kropotkin and Russian anarchists en masse for the former's early pro-war sentiment, Vladimir Lenin published a 1915 article in The National Pride of the Great Russians, in which he denounced his political enemies, Kropotkin and Georgi Plekhanov, as "chauvinists by opportunism or spinelessness". These two sentences have a bit of a hiccup in between them. I would suggest starting the second sentence with "Vladimir Lenin attacked the ...."
6. At the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, anarchist activity was restricted both physically and by the internal divisions within the anarchist movement over attitudes towards the war. Where was the anarchist activity restricted? Europe? Asia? World-wide?
7. The November 1914 issue of Freedom featured articles in support for the Allied cause from anarchists including Kropotkin, Jean Grave, Warlaam Tcherkesoff and Verleben as well as a rebuttal to Kropotkin's "A Letter to Steffen", entitled "Anarchists have forgotten their Principles", by Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta. I believe it should be either "in support of the..." or "supporting the..."
8. denouncing him as a coward for not rejecting such letters, and therefore of being unworthy of his role as editor. The therefore phrase does not quite follow from the first phrase, unless you add some bit about how in Kropotkin's opinion etc. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "and therefore in Kropotkin's opinion he was unworthy of his role as editor."
9. By 1916, the Great War had been taking place for approximately two years ...approximating something that should be more exacting so it reads a little incorrect. Why not say for almost two years? ...WWI began on 28 July 1914 so by August of 1916 you're talking about over two years. But the document says "after twenty months of war", which is almost two years, so if the sentence, which is discussing background and therefore a point in 1916 that is before 25 months of war have taken place (over two years). If revised you could avoid this ambiguity. Maybe "At the turn of 1916"? Also, instead of writing "taking place" try using "had been ongoing for approximately two years".
10. during which anarchists took part in anti-war movements across Europe, issuing numerous anti-war statements in anarchist and leftist publications. How about instead: "During which anarchists had taken part"?
11. and other ruling parties of the German Empire would progress the anarchist goal of the emancipation of Europe and of the German people... Maybe use "promote" rather than "progress"? Or "advance". Progress doesn't sound right.
12. The signatories originally numbered fifteen, with the mistaken sixteenth name, "Hussein Dey", being the name of the city in which Antoine Orfila lived. You should put this explanation in the lede. "Misreading of the text" is too ambiguous. I was glad to finally get the full gist of that misreading.
13. later joined the French Resistance during the World War II. Well, just "during World War II".
14. during the final years in London prior to his return to Russia. How about "during his final years..."?
15. In his 1922 overview of Kropotkin's writings, Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist Ideas, Camillo Berneri interjected criticism of the former's militarism. How about "In a 1922 overview of Kropotkin's writings titled ...., Camillo Berneri interjected" or something like that. Maybe "In Camillo Berneri's 1922 overview..."

If you could just address these points then I will pass it as a GA.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've addressed most of the phrasing/spelling/copyediting issues (though not with absolute confidence, so take a look), but for some of the issues (1, 6, 10), the sources will need to be consulted again. Point 12 also remains unaddressed. Skomorokh 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Being the editor who wrote and cited the sentence referenced in the 1st point, I've addressed the issue myself. The historical record presented by Woodcock did strongly state that Kropotkin was gripped with a severe hatred for the Germans, and that this was made almost feverish by the outbreak of the war. I left out several distressing details which were not pertinent to this article, but which would be very important to note in Kropotkin's biography article, including that he went so far as to decorate his mantle place with the flags of the allies. Yikes. Disdain works in this context. I've also addressed the 12th point. --Cast (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, looks like point six is the only one remaining unaddressed (not to suggest the others have been addressed conclusively). The history identifies me as the culprit, but I do not have access to the source (Richards' Errico Malatesta), and can't find it online again, I suspect due to changes in the Google Books service. However, I think it's uncontroversial to take the line as speaking about the European anarchist movement (incl. Russia), as the war was solely European in its inception, and none of the other regions that the anarchist movement had a presence (e.g. U.S.A., Argentina) were significantly involved or would have curtailed anarchist activity. Skomorokh 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would seem to be uncontroversial. I also doubt the Japanese or Chinese anarchists found themselves paralyzed at the prospect of war between France and Germany. I opt that we at least state "European anarchist movement" to cover our bases. --Cast (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I passed the article. To improve it I would suggest including a few more references if possible but potentially you have already exhausted them? I also note that there are additional page numbers in the bibliography which are no longer necessary given the citations above. Good work.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and promotion. Although we've exhausted all of the references we know of at the moment, we'll continue to update this article as new information comes to light, and generally see about maintaining its quality. I'll also see about completing the editing of the bibliography list. Again, thank you for your assistance in promoting this article. --Cast (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's of quite high quality. I would suggest a peer review and seeking FA status eventually. It would definitely be an interesting article for the main page.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)