Talk:Vladimir Lenin/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a seriously thorough article. I'd better get cracking, especially as you have already been waiting two months. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Caeciliusinhorto! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin by getting some of the easy stuff out of the way:

You have some inconsistencies in spelling (e.g. using both "honour" and "honor", "criticise" and "criticize"

I have standardised the spelling to American English in both of those cases. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

The article links to Battle of Warsaw, which is a disambiguation page. It looks like the link should be to the Battle of Warsaw (1920).

Corrected! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

More soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read up to the end of the subsection on the October Revolution. I've done some (hopefully uncontroversial) copyediting, but I have a few more comments for you to look at:

The infobox lists Lenin's siblings as Aleksandr, Anna, Dmitry, Maria, and four others; however, the article only mentions two more (Olga and Nikolai). The article on Ilya mentions that there were two Olga's, one dying as an infant, but even so that only brings us up to seven siblings for Lenin. Was there an eighth, or is this wrong?

I believe that this is a mistake, which I shall correct. Perhaps it is based on the fact that there were eight children altogether, including Lenin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

I don't understand the use of names for Lenin, here. In the section on early life, he is called Vladimir throughout, except in the last sentence where he is referred to as Lenin. He continues to be referred to as Lenin until the final paragraph of the subsection on "early activism and imprisonment", in which he is referred to as "Ulyanov". He is then referred to twice as Ulyanov and once as Lenin before 1901, when we are told that "Ulyanov adopted the pseudonym Lenin". I think that probably the best solution would be to call him "Vladimir" when referring to him as a child, "Ulyanov" as a adult before the end of 1901, and "Lenin" for the rest of the article, but I don't really care so long as the solution you choose is more consistent than this one. When the name he is being referred to by changes mid-paragraph for no clear reason it is distracting.

Generally, I was trying to avoid using the name "Lenin" when describing the period of his life before he actually adopted that pseudonym. Thus I preferred to use "Ulyanov", but then in the earlier sections I did not want to cause confusion given that both his father and brother (also with the surname of "Ulyanov") are mentioned. For that reason I went with "Vladimir". However, as you point out the current situation is confused and muddled, and so I think I might be best if I change all usages of his name to "Lenin", regardless of what period in his life is being discussed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

In the subsection on Lenin at university, we read that:

Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined both an agrarian-socialist revolutionary cell and the university's illegal Samara-Simbirsk zemlyachestvo, being elected as its representative for the university's zemlyachestvo council.

This is fairly confusing, as unless someone knows what a zemlyachestvo is (and it has been a while since I have studied Russian history, so I had forgotten), it sounds like it's another radical revolutionary organisation. It wasn't until the next sentence reminded me that all student societies were banned that I went back and realised.

This is tricky given how precise the meaning of "zemlyachestvo" and the fact that we have no comparable term in the English language. I've tried to deal with the problem by changing the prose to "Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined both a zemlyachestvo, or group of men from Samara-Simbirsk – which elected him as its representative for the university's zemlyachestvo council – and an agrarian-socialist revolutionary cell." However, if you feel that this does not do the job either then I can try to rephrase it again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

In the section on the 1905 revolution, we hear that the Tsarist government disbanded the Second Duma. It's not made clear in the article what the Dumas were, or why it mattered to Lenin/Russian radicals that the Duma had been disbanded.

I've reworded this sentence to the following, which I hope better explains the situation to the reader: "However, as the Tsarist government cracked down on opposition – both by disbanding Russia's legislative assembly, the Second Duma, and by ordering its secret police, the Okhrana, to arrest revolutionaries – Lenin fled Finland for Switzerland." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

In the section on the October revolution, the article mentions "the Bolshevik ship Aurora". Again, this is unclear: the ship was not Bolshevik-owned, it was part of the Russian navy, and was crewed by enough Bolsheviks that it took part in the revolution. As it stands, the article could be read as saying that the Aurora was a ship owned by the Bolshevik party or the MRC.

I've changed the wording here to "the cruiser, Auroroa, which was controlled by Bolshevik seamen". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for the second half of the article:

Why is giving the Left SRs five posts on Sovnarkom only "partially conceding" to calls to form a coalition government?

The original calls had been for the Bolsheviks to form a pan-socialist government, i.e. with the Left SRs, the SRs, and the Mensheviks. In the end, the Bolsheviks only agreed to a coalition with the former. I've made some alterations to the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

Why "although" in "although in December Lenin holidayed briefly in Halia"?

Good point. Rewritten. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

Free universal education for all children: what ages does this apply to?

Unfortunately, the source cited (Service) doesn't specify this. I'll have a look to see if it is mentioned in any other sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter that much. If all Service says is 'universal free education', I can live with our article saying it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on anti-Kulak movements, the Cheka, and the Red Terror, you might want to start the section by giving some context. At the moment, it reads:

Many of the cities in western Russia were facing famine as a result of chronic food shortages.

It's not clear when this refers to, and it is only two sentences later that the reader finds that this is in Spring 1918, when the previous section was talking about the end of WWI in November that year. Try something like:

By the spring of 1918, many of the cities in western Russia...

Good idea. I'm changing the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

The article talks about Kulaks "allegedly hoarding their produce": perhaps give some context on the idea that Kulaks were hoarding grain?

I've changed this sentence to the following: "Lenin claimed that the blame for this problem lay with the kulaks, or wealthier peasants, who were allegedly hoarding the grain that they had produced to increase its financial value" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

In the same paragraph, we hear how this policy provided "much fuel for the developing civil war", but the beginning of the civil war isn't covered until the next subsection. It might be better to give some more context than just pulling "developing civil war" out of the blue.

I didn't want to expand too much here, given that there is already a whole section devoted to the civil war, but I've changed the wording to "providing much fuel for the development of the civil war". I know that this is not a major change, but I hope that it rectifies the issue to some extent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then the subsection on the civil war has lots of detail, but much of it doesn't really concern Lenin. There's a whole paragraph on the makeup of the White armies, for instance. I know some context is needed, but the article is long as it is, but three of the eight paragraphs in this section don't even mention Lenin once! (and three more mention his name only once)

It's a difficult balancing act. However, I do think that mention of the forces that Lenin's armies were fighting does provide some important background information on the conflict itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that it's difficult to thread this needle. You might consider cutting down the paragraph about the makeup of the white armies and concatenating it with the previous one, something like this, but then you do get quite a long first paragraph, and there's not anything obvious to trim. I suppose you could cut out the things about the Greens, because as interesting as the Green army factions were, and as much as they would add to an article about the Civil War, I'm not sure how relevant they are to Lenin's life... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I decided that the best bet was to trim both the paragraph on the White armies, and that on foreign armies, and merge the two together. The result is a paragraph that isn't really about Lenin himself, but does provide vital background information and is at least confining itself to a single paragraph rather than two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there are a few more paragraphs throughout the article which don't really concern Lenin, but the civil war subsection is the worst offender. Elsewhere, the paragraph which deals with the Kronstadt rebellion looks like it would be better off in the biography of Trotsky, and at least a couple more paragraphs never mention Lenin (though their importance is more apparent).

Again, it's a difficult balancing act. Certainly, military affairs were primarily orchestrated by Trotsky, but Lenin was the head of government at the time and thus I do think that these things do require a mention. Where possible I have added a little extra information into the article, trying to ensure that Lenin's relationship with the event is included in the article, so as to better reflect that this is the article about Lenin himself, rather than Sovnarkom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on Lenin's political views, we read that:

his main concern thereby being how to convert Russia from capitalism to socialism.

I thought that a key point of Lenin's politics (and a point of contention with the Mensheviks) was that Russia could move from feudalism to socialism after the February revolution without bothering about letting capitalism get properly established? (Though I may be wrong, here; it's been a while since I studied the Russian Revolution)

As I understand it, Lenin certainly believed that Russia had capitalist elements to its economy and moreover, he saw it as being run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie following the February Revolution. At the same time he also recognised the strength of the 'feudal' aristocracy and Tsar as well as the pre-capitalist, small-scale agrarian nature of much of the Russian economy. Nevertheless, I have taken your point into consideration and changed the prose in the article to the following: "with his main concern thereby being how to convert Russia into a socialist society". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

This line:

The Bolshevik leader expressed an attitude of cultural superiority between different nations; at the top was Germany, followed by Britain and France, and then Finland, with Russia coming beneath them.

is comprehensible, but reads really badly. I'd strongly suggest that you re-write it, because it's just not as good as the rest of the prose.

I've gone with "The Bolshevik leader expressed an attitude of cultural superiority between Europe's nations, with Germany as the apogee of superiority and Russia as a largely inferior country." Do you think that that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The Bolshevik leader believed that other European countries, especially Germany, were culturally superior to Russia"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll make the change.

Done

I think once all of that has been dealt with, we can dispense with criterion (1a) and get onto the rest... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these comments, Caeciliusinhorto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, @Midnightblueowl:. I think I'm happy with the article's prose, now. The article passes all of the other GA criteria, too (I learnt a lot about US copyright law and the public domain over the last few weeks making sure criterion 6 was okay!), and so I'm going to pass this as a Good Article now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, thank you both for the GA, and for taking the time to review it in the first place, Caeciliusinhorto. I hope tat it brought back (good) memories of studying Russian history! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: It did indeed bring back good memories, though I have to admit that it's a little out of my usual way these days. Ancient history and women's history for me mostly recently. Not much chance of either of those in this article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: - ah, it's good to see someone working on women's history here at Wikipedia. It's a subject that I really must try to contribute to more often. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]