Talk:Kronstadt rebellion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

• I will be presenting my assessment within the next 24 hours. I hope my feedback is helpful and that I can learn something new from it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Looking forward to it! Would appreciate your thoughts on the last two sections—I wasn't quite sure how (or whether) to handle them czar 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Czar, apologies for delaying the review for this long. I've completed it and left some suggestions. The article is good for the most part except some issues with its organisation. For the time being, I'm putting this on hold for them to be addressed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: Some manual of style issues have been resolved, the prose is good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is clear and concise.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	There are some issues with the manual of style, see comments for details. (Resolved)	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is complaint with the policy on verifiability.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	In-line references have been provided for the entire article.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable, primarily high quality scholarly works.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No issues with original research that I could find.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	There might be some copyright issues. (Resolved)	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: Issues with have been resolved and the article covers all major aspects.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article generally covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	There are some issues with the focus, see comments for details. (Resolved)	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
There might be some neutrality issues, see comments. (Resolved)	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No edit warring or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated with appropriate images and captions.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are in the public domain and appropiately tagged.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images have appropriate captions.	Pass

Comments

• Earwig's copyright detector shows high likelihood of a violation, mostly due to the list under Petropavlovsk resolution and a lot of quotations used within the article. While I don't think the text per se would fall under copyright, it might be better to tone down on the quotations, and rework the list a bit. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like it's only the translation of the resolution in Earwig's. Editorially, do you think it's worth swapping in this English PD version or excising altogether? czar 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the resolution and its points is an important aspect of the topic, and should be kept. The PD translation reads better editorially, so I'd suggest adding it instead and with a slight modification as in replacing "Communist" with "Bolshevik" or "Russian Communist Party" to avoid confusion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Issues regarding the last four sections. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No major issues with the "Repression" but the name is a bit in your face. It also relates to the charges, so it might be better editorially to keep them closer.
  • In section "Legacy", the first three paragraph appear to describe the immediate consequences rather than its legacy.
  • The last section called "Impact" doesn't describe the impact of the rebellion but rather consists of descriptions of the rebellion from three contemporaries. I'd suggest removing this section altogether as the descriptions appear to be somewhat inaccurate and might bring up neutrality issues.
  • Overall, my suggestion would be to merge the sections under a single section called "Aftermath" with two subsections underneath. The section called "Repression" could constitute the first two paragraphs of the single section, after which there could be two subsection called "Accusations" and "Impact".
    • "Accusations" would be the same as the section currently called "Charges of international and counter-revolutionary involvement".
    • The subsection "Impact" would be the same as the section currently called "Legacy".

Visualisation
Aftermath Dybenko, a Bolshevik officer in the Kronstadt assault, was given full power to purge dissent as the Kronstadt Fort's new commander.... Accusations Claims that the Kronstadt uprising was instigated by foreign and counter-revolutionary forces extended beyond the March 2 government ultimatum.... Impact None of the Kronstadt rebellion's demands were met....

• General note on references. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The article appears a bit too reliant on Avrich. That said, it does rely enough on others to make it ameanable for a good article.
    • re: Avrich, Smele's 2003 bibliography of the era does say, "Masterfully written, this volume remains the only full-length, scholarly, non-partisan account of the genesis, course and repression of the rebellion to have appeared in English." :) But I'll look to diversify in the future. czar 04:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of the works are a bit old, from a time when the cold war was ongoing.
  • In general some polishing on this front could be possible due to the above.
• Other issues with MoS. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the preface, freedom of labor links to libertarian socialism. Shouldn't this instead link to labor rights?
  • The "socialist and anarchist groups" in the lead could be linked to libertarian socialism. The Anarchism template should also be in the Petropavlovsk resolution section.
  • The subsection "Stance and measures taken by the rebels" could be renamed to "Rebel activities" for consistency.

---

• @Tayi Arajakate, Believe I've addressed the above points—let me know what you think? czar 04:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The points have been adequately addressed, I briefly went through the sourcing again and as far as I can tell the article is compliant with the good article criteria. Good work on the article in general. Pass Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)