Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronstadt rebellion/archive1

Kronstadt rebellion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I intended to have this ready for TFA on its 100th anniversary (next month) but that's looking increasingly unrealistic. The article was recently translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia, which in turn was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Both are FAs, so I thought I'd just clean up the translation and nominate, but it was more complicated than that, with some stats failing verification when converting refs from Avrich 2004 (en Español) to Avrich 1970 (original, English-language edition). I corrected some but not all of these errors in the Portuguese article.

I'm aware of the surface-level stuff—outstanding ref issues, too many external links, and the like—but I welcome input on content, which sections need more breadth/content, if any additional sources are important to include, if there are better images available, etc. Thanks! czar 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources a reviewer might expect to be cited:

Croll, Neil (2004). "The role of M.N. Tukhachevskii in the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion". Revolutionary Russia. 17 (2): 1–48. doi:10.1080/0954654042000289688.
Pirani, Simon (2008). The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920–24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-07550-8.

Kenneth Rexroth's 1940 poem “From the Paris Commune to the Kronstadt Rebellion”(secondary source) is not mentioned here but probably should be. (t · c) buidhe 07:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I understand you want comment on breadth/content, ignoring the “surface-level stuff” for now, but there is too much “surface-level” stuff for me to be able to get through— that’s just not how I review. If you get more of the basics cleaned up, please ping me and I will read through. When there is a whole ton of Further reading that hasn’t been worked in, harvref errors everywhere ... I’m not sure what I’m reading or where to start. I hope you intend to address the MOS:SANDWICH. Sorry, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]