Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonid Brezhnev/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:28, 5 October 2010 [1].

Leonid Brezhnev

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my best work to date. --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a co-nom for one of the two, you're only allowed one nomination at FAC at a time. Courcelles 07:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... --TIAYN (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article seems to missing a lot in comprehensiveness/research. My Vietnam War books have a lot about the wheeling/dealing between USSR/PRC/US, and they discuss Kosygin/Brezhnev in quite a lot of deal, including the USSR/PRC split and how the US tried to play them against each other etc, and in the peace negotiations. Both Kosygin and Brezhnev were mentioned a lot, and there are even books specifically on USSR/PRC and how they competed over N Vietnam. But the internal communist politics and heavy funding for N Vietnam is almost not mentioned at all, nor China (apart from the fact the US lost). The article is generally nbot very long for the leadering Soviet leaders for 20 years. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1c. Incomplete research. I'd like to see more source diversity, I am particularly concerned with the reliance on a popular Penguin work, even if from a scholar, which lacks a specialist focus on Brezhnev. I do not believe the article is currently sourced adequately, post Soviet Russian works? Where are the University Presses expected here? There are a couple of NPOV issues with wording (assuming the reading subject is American, use of words bound up with American ideology in the cold war). The language also needs polishing. There are structural problems with the presentation, the time narrative jumps around. This is a good article, particularly in terms of economics in the 1970s; but it needs some more work.
In more detail: If he rolled the anti-party faction, it is almost essential to discuss his position on Hungary 1956, particularly because of Czechoslovakia 1968. Early life is underwritten for a politbureau grade bureaucrat. Essential biography here would include his factional position and graft network. Was he slated for purging in the purge of dead memberships? Do we know who he shopped in the mid to late 1930s? "He graduated from the Dniprodzerzhynsk Metallurgical Technicum in 1935" As a 5 in 4 graduate? "In 1963 also, Brezhnev succeeded Frol Kozlov," how did he manage this? "While a minority headed by Mikoyan wanted to remove Khrushchev from the office of First Secretary but retain him as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers," how did Mikoyan get rolled, admittedly outmanoeuvring Mikoyan is as easy as buying a bottle of milk, but? Many people saw him as a bit of a Zhou Enlai in the day. Your narrative fails to give contextual meaning. The why questions are left unanswered. "including the intelligentsia," technical or cultural? Finally some why, "T.H. Rigby argued that by the end of the 1960s, a stable oligarchic system" but it is a single source buy into a very complex topic, you should at least deal with the SWP(UK) line, and the 4th International line, both of which form major historiographies of the failure of the Soviet Union. NPOV issues, "and clamping down on cultural freedom." You actually mean freedom of political expression. The term "cultural freedom" is associated with US funded right wing exile juntas and occasional paramilitary organisations, it is a technical term in this context, avoid. Mischaracterisation, "state security service (the KGB) regained much of the power it had enjoyed under Stalin"... so they ran an independent counter economy in extraction and manufacturing? "and Stalin's legacy remained largely discredited among the Soviet intelligentsia." dubious. The Soviet social category of intelligentsia formally included the technical intelligentsia, military intelligentsia, the bureaucratic intelligentsia.
"In Socialist Poland, " was there another Poland in the late 1960s? Misordered, Poland 1970 first, then Czechoslovakia in 1968. Table "Economic growth until 1973" should be GNP _growth_ no? Original research, "although it was really a restatement of existing Soviet policy, as Khrushchev had shown in Hungary in 1956." Political Committee documents have been analysed in scholarly sources from 1956, Khrushchev's policy was a result of international consultation, and most parties consulted wavered, including the CP USSR. Perhaps, "amplified the policy decided in relation to Hungary in 1956."
Other Random Comments less related to the oppose: Quality of prose, unencyclopedic, "Brezhnev was lucky that he was re-called in 1956; the harvest in the following years proved to be disappointing and would have hurt his political career if he'd stayed.", misordered chronology, "He joined the Communist Party youth organization, the Komsomol in 1923 and the Party itself in 1929." happens after he graduates in 1935. I doubt he would have got a tech education without being a full party member. Out of place: "Khrushchev was removed mainly because of his disregard of many high-ranking organizations within the CPSU and the Soviet government." This sentence needs working to reach encyclopaedic prose, "and they happily helped him in his task ". The split between biography and policy in article structure is artificial, and could well be improved by integration of the narrative. The story ends up being told twice over. And 1968 comes _way_ too late in the article. I read "Repression" and expect Czech'68. "This was true despite the advantage the United States had—the USSR was hampered" WP is not the story of the United States. "This was seen by some as proof that de-collectivization was necessary" weasel, who, citation needed. Reword, "which led to minor increases in public support." Intended where, "skilled workers still had to be paid more than had been intended," Different to the 1950s how, "with unskilled labourers having to be indulged regarding punctuality, conscientiousness and sobriety." Actually different to the West how? Context comparison to say the FDR, "common Soviet living on 13.4 square metres". "The détente had rested on the assumption that a "linkage"" When in 1970? Did they start funding the DRVN/NFL in 1970? "funding the communist guerillas who fought" mischaracterisation. 2c "Reeves, W. Robert; Green, William C. " are the wrong way around in short citations. 1c: Given but not cited, "Ulan, Adam Bruno (2002). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765808854. http://books.google.ca/books?id=wgtCaPUPIlwC&dq.", get rid of it, it is Transaction. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.