Talk:History of computing in the Soviet Union/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosguill (talk · contribs) 22:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): General structure is fine, but sections for individual eras could use additional subheaders, splitting individual milestones and trivia (like the invention of Tetris or the impounding of American chess software bound for Moscow) away from narrative sections describing the state of the industry It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): Claims about the Ninth Five-Year-Plan are exclusively sourced to a Fortune.com piece with a clear ideological bone to pick and bases its assessments on a PhD dissertation. A brief look at the wikipedia page for the Ninth Five-Year-Plan would suggest that while the Plan faced general failures in implementation, the implementation of improvements in the computer technology sector was one of the few successful elements c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: The appraisal section is of questionable neutrality. In particular, the claims from the Hudson Institute are extreme enough that they would appear to contradict the article as a whole, and the comparison to South Korea and Taiwan seems unfair. Additionally, Strayer's analysis is tautological--without specifying a causal mechanism, they blame the Soviet's command economy; this method of reasoning could be used to dismiss or affirm virtually any claim about Soviet industry and relies on pre-existing ideological perceptions of the desirability (or lack thereof) of non-market based economies. If nothing else, I would recommend reordering this section so that it leads with what is currently the second paragraph "Although soviet computer software..." It is stable. . No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Good quality overall, but specific issues of sources and neutrality should be addressed. Some additional copyediting for the structure for history sections wouldn't be remiss either. Upon review and discussion below, the article was deemed to have passed. Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hi Rosguill, thank you for taking the time to review the article.

1a: Agreed, I have removed such milestones until enough of them can be gathered for a separate section.

2b: The Fortune source has been replaced by Benjamin Peters' How Not to Network a Nation: it seems that a heavily simplified version of the original proposal was indeed implemented.

4: I still need to do any work on this section, but per capita incomes in the USSR in the early 80s were 85-90% of the Japanese level, and 2 to 3 times higher than South Korea and Taiwan, so I can't agree that the comparison is unfair.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted for the SK and Taiwan comparison. Originally I had based the objection on disparities in foreign investment, not per capita income. That having been said, ultimately no comparison between countries is going to be perfect, so I suppose we can leave it in. Rosguill (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Update about #4: I found two sources, one again lists the lack of market forces as the reason for decline; the other provides a more detailed breakdown but it is from those same Hudson researchers.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Hi again! Let me know if further improvements are needed for the GA nomination. Cheers, --eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. Looking over the article now, it appears to be in good shape and I will change the evaluation status to "pass"

Additional comments by Lingzhi

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)