Talk:Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. Overall this is a pretty good article! However therea re some issues that I will outline below.

• Prose
  • Lead sections should be at minimum 2 full paragraphs, see WP:LEAD. My suggestion is to make the first paragraph more about the background and why it lead to the acceptance, with the second paragraph the implementation and effects.
  • "Therefore the Soviets followed semi-legal procedures: took control of the government institutions, installed a new puppet government, and announced show elections to the People's Seimas" -does not make sense. Either needs a they before "took control" or a modification of the colon.
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "in part as an attempt to buy time against this possibility" -does not make sense (metahpor mixing?) Buy time to prepare for this possibility, perhaps, or "in an attempt to delay this"? I'm not sure exactly what the original source said so I dont want to change the meaning.
    • Changed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "In February 1940, the Lithuanian government decided to relocate the army units so that they could shield the government while it retreats abroad.[19] Although various resolutions were forwarded, nothing tangible was accomplished." The first sentence seems to interrupt the flow of ideas that continues with the second sentence. Also, it's not clear--did the army units move? The "nothing tangible" suggests that they didn't.
    • Deleted. The source did not specify. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Izvestia published an article warning that it was naive for a small country to attempt neutrality"-- should make it clear in the text that Izvestia is a Soviet newspaper, to clarify.
    • Clarified. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The statement "Lithuania lost its independence." comes out of nowhere in the 'Ultimatum and acceptance' section. Make it flow a little more naturally?
    • Moved. Better? Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Since there had been strong opposition to Smetona's rule, it was interpreted by some Lithuanians as a destruction of presidential power rather than as a loss of independence."--needs a reference at the end of it
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The official fraudulent.[56] results showed a voter turnout of 95.51% and that communist delegates received 99.19% of the votes."--incomplete sentences!
    • Fixed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Communist Party of Lithuania with some 1,500 members[61] and its youth branch were designated the only legitimate political entities" need commas after lituania and members in order to add proper flow and direction.
    • Added. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Final lines of 'Impacts and evaluation' section are only two sentences, not a true paragraph. Flesh out or merge the lines somewhere.
    • Merged. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Images
  • Due to the massive amount of info that is crapped into it, File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg is rather useless even at the high resolution it is linked at. Perhaps a redrawing of the map would help, shunting the key into a separate section, like the image here: [1] I think that would require the original uploader's assistance though.
    • Uploaded a new map without legend (which is on the description page). Added another map. I am not aware of any other suitable maps/images. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg is currently up for deletion--I'd remove it for now and reinstate it if it's kept.
    • I prefer to leave it alone until things sort themselves out. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Any other images that could be added? (Say, maps of locations to add in reader understanding of geography?)
• References
  • References all appear to be reliable print publications or books.
  • Other than the above example I did not see any issues with under-referencing.
• Styles
  • Em dashes should not have spaces between them, as in "However, Merkys could not be found — he was apparently resting at his estate near Kaunas."
    • Fixed. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the general styling appears consistent and in agreement.
• Overall: I am putting the article on hold pending the above improvements. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I have very little time these days. Hope to address any other issues tomorrow. Crashing to bed now. Renata (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being thorough. As I read it, all that needs to be done is expansion of the lead, and I'll pass as GA. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Agh, sorry for the delay. I worked probably like 60 hours this week. I think I am officially brain dead :( I expanded the lead and I hope it meets the criteria. Let me know if anything else needs fixing. Thanks for the patience! Renata (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, I had a couple of real-world issues to address too and have been away for the past three days or so. :) I will try and read through it again and respond later today. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright, I've double-checked and it seems like my main issue (the lead) has been taken care of. The article looks much better, and I am happy to pass as GA. Congrats! Martin Raybourne (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much! Renata (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)