Wikipedia:Peer review/Vladimir Lenin/archive1

Vladimir Lenin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It is a well-known topic in social philosophy and it is likely viewed by many. I am not sure if this article is ready for WP:GA status but it might be. There appears to be many problems with this page, just judging by the size of its "Hidden categories" section. Most importantly, I request that a To-do list is formed and the end of the reviewing process. This is my first peer review nomination. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really you shouldn't do peer review like this. You haven't edited the article, which seems clearly not very ready for the process. Reviewers are very stretched & peer review should normally only be done after sorting out basic problems, and when it's clear there are competent editors ready to fix review points. Neither applies here. I suggest this is closed. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just some copyediting comments. - Dank (push to talk)

"He served as head of government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1917, and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death.": "From" is ambiguous here in AmEng, I'd recommend "from 1917 to 1922, and then of the Soviet Union until his death."
"all wealth": I don't know what "all wealth" means, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be possible to nationalize everything of value in a country.
"he devoted the following years to a law degree and to radical politics": Since the years aren't mentioned, better would be: "he earned a law degree and devoted himself to radical politics"
"sedition": I'd link it.
"he married Nadezhda Krupskaya, and fled to Western Europe": I generally don't comment much on commas because everyone seems to have their own idea of when to use them, but they're so common in this article that they lose their usefulness. This is one I'd axe.
"later campaigned for the First World War to be transformed into": later campaigned to transform the First World War into
"Homosexuality and abortion were legalized; Lenin's Russia was the first country in the world to establish both of these rights. Free access was being given to both abortion and birth control.": Lenin's Russia was the first country in the world to legalize homosexuality and abortion, and birth control was made available.
"free education ... free healthcare": the source given for the supporting statement below the lead is this; it doesn't inspire confidence. Even if it did, those terms tend to be loaded and tend to mean different things at different times and places, so a bit more explanation of exactly what was provided would help clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

groupuscule comments

The article seems detailed at parts but is somewhat disproportionate in coverage. Specifically, it needs more treatment of the years 1919–1923. The events of 1917 gets 9474+ characters; whereas 1920–1922, an obviously crucial period, get ~ 2495 characters. Okay this is a little tough to determine, since some events beginning in 1917–1918 continued into the 1920s. But I hope you catch my drift, that the period of Lenin's actual power over the Soviet Union is arguably the least developed section of the article! So this is where effort should be directed, in my opinion.

Other sections might have to shed some material which deals with political happenings at large but not with Lenin directly. Yes the context is important but there is a lot of ground to cover. Some paragraphs don't refer to Lenin at all.

Currently the Russian famine of 1921 gets a strangely tangential mention in the section called "Red Terror". It probably should be stated more clearly, though I'm sure that there is a lot of debate on the subject, that this event of six million people starving to death was preceded by a government policy of confiscating their food.

The very short section on the Civil War hardly contains any information about the war itself, or Lenin's relationship to it. Some relevant material is elsewhere, a bit out of place, which I would say is sort of a theme for this part of the article. Consider searching for a workable conceptual division (such as "Economics", "Politics", and "War") and reorganizing along those lines.

Consider whether this guy is the best source on what Lenin was actually doing on the daily in 1922.

Addendum: I don't mean to suggest that Lenin was a monster and the article needs to bash him over the head with all the problems experienced in Russia 1917–1923—only that, given the major significance of these problems it is worthwhile to more clearly address Lenin's relationship to them.