Talk:Revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Saint Petersburg and foreign visits: 1893–95 "Following on from his early life, during which he had become devoted to the cause of revolution against the Tsarist regime in the Russian Empire and converted to Marxism, Lenin moved to St. Petersburg. There he joined a revolutionary cell, and became a vocal advocate for Marxism within the revolutionary socialist movement. Entering a relationship with fellow Marxist Nadezhda Krupskaya, he toured Western Europe to build ties with other Russian revolutionary emigres and learn more about the international Marxist movement. Upon returning to Russia, he was arrested for sedition in 1895" (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Siberian exile: 1895–1900 "and exiled to Shushenskoye in the Minusinsky District of eastern Siberia for three years, where he devoted his time to translating and writing revolutionary texts." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 3: Munich, London and Geneva: 1900–05 "His exile over, in 1900 he moved to Western Europe, where he joined the editorial board of Iskra, the publication of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Iskra's base was moved from Munich to London and then to Geneva, each time accompanied by Lenin. At the party's second congress, held in London in 1902, a major schism erupted between Lenin and his supporters (the Bolsheviks) and Julius Martov and his supporters (the Mensheviks); Lenin emphasised a strongly centralised party controlled largely by the leadership, whereas Martov accepted a wider party with more independence of thought." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 4: Revolution and aftermath: 1905–14 "Lenin returned to Russia briefly during the Revolution of 1905, but fled again when the Tsarist authorities defeated the revolutionary forces and cracked down on dissent." & "Living in Paris and then Krakow, he focused on internal conflict within the Marxist movement, opposing the ideas of the Mensheviks and Alexander Bogdanov; he penned Materialism and Empirio-criticism to counter his critics." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 5: First World War: 1914–17 "During the First World War, he relocated to Switzerland, where he argued that socialists should work toward converting that "imperialist war" into a continent-wide "civil war" in which the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie. He summarised his thought in the book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and also re-interpreted Marxism on the basis of reading Hegelian philosophy." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Saint Petersburg and foreign visits: 1893–95 "Following on from his early life, during which he had become devoted to the cause of revolution against the Tsarist regime in the Russian Empire and converted to Marxism, Lenin moved to St. Petersburg. There he joined a revolutionary cell, and became a vocal advocate for Marxism within the revolutionary socialist movement. Entering a relationship with fellow Marxist Nadezhda Krupskaya, he toured Western Europe to build ties with other Russian revolutionary emigres and learn more about the international Marxist movement. Upon returning to Russia, he was arrested for sedition in 1895" (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Siberian exile: 1895–1900 "and exiled to Shushenskoye in the Minusinsky District of eastern Siberia for three years, where he devoted his time to translating and writing revolutionary texts." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Munich, London and Geneva: 1900–05 "His exile over, in 1900 he moved to Western Europe, where he joined the editorial board of Iskra, the publication of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Iskra's base was moved from Munich to London and then to Geneva, each time accompanied by Lenin. At the party's second congress, held in London in 1902, a major schism erupted between Lenin and his supporters (the Bolsheviks) and Julius Martov and his supporters (the Mensheviks); Lenin emphasised a strongly centralised party controlled largely by the leadership, whereas Martov accepted a wider party with more independence of thought." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Revolution and aftermath: 1905–14 "Lenin returned to Russia briefly during the Revolution of 1905, but fled again when the Tsarist authorities defeated the revolutionary forces and cracked down on dissent." & "Living in Paris and then Krakow, he focused on internal conflict within the Marxist movement, opposing the ideas of the Mensheviks and Alexander Bogdanov; he penned Materialism and Empirio-criticism to counter his critics." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 5: First World War: 1914–17 "During the First World War, he relocated to Switzerland, where he argued that socialists should work toward converting that "imperialist war" into a continent-wide "civil war" in which the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie. He summarised his thought in the book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and also re-interpreted Marxism on the basis of reading Hegelian philosophy."s (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done The Russian communist revolutionary and politician Vladimir Lenin began his active revolutionary activity in 1892, and continued till assuming power in the Russian Revolution of 1917. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis for the Siberian exile: 1895–1900.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Midnightblueowl, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Seabuckthorn; I have made the necessary addition to the introduction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Midnightblueowl, very much for writing such excellent articles. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I owe you my thanks for going to all the effort of reviewing one of my articles, Seabuckthorn. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

American Historical Review article and historian Robert Service

At Robert Service (historian), Wikipedia reports that questions have been raised by a number of academics as to "factual errors" in Service's writings on Leon Trotsky. See section Work and critical reception. http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/3/900

Under normal circumstances, the footnotes for Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin are more than adequate. I would recommend - and I personally do this as a matter of course in all my recent articles - is to provide the direct quotation of the passage from which the editor has summarized and paraphrased the material in the article. It takes a few minutes to include a citation of this kind, and it seems prudent, and considerate, to provide Service's material, as it pertains to the article, "on demand", as it were. Would that be too much trouble? 36hourblock (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that that is an interesting idea, 36hourblock, however in this case it has the major disadvantage of exponentially increasing the length of the article in question, which is something that we should fundamentally avoid, as per Wikipedia policy. It would also take many, many hours to do, which I personally think would be much better spent improving other articles on Wikipedia, including those on Lenin. I think also that we should distinguish between Service's historical studies of Trotsky (which have been heavily criticised for factual innacuracy) and Lenin (which have not; see Lenin: A Biography). Service has of course devoted a significantly larger part of his life to the study of Lenin, only devoting his attentions to Stalin and Trotsky at a later date in his career. Thus, his work on Lenin (although certainly politically slanted in a very anti-socialist direction) is a lot more factually trustworthy than his work on Trotsky. For these reasons I personally would advise against the reforms to the referencing that you suggest. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have misapprehended my request. No change to the body of the article is necessary. Merely provide the passage from each Service citation (perhaps a few sentences or so), that support a dozen of so footnotes. This would hardly entail a large investment of time: you possess the source material, do you not?

To your second point, I would only repeat that Service has been charged, by reputable sources, with misrepresenting historical events regarding Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary associate of Lenin. If you deem Service worthy as a source, so be it. But I strongly urge you to provide extended quotations that support your material in the article. As I pointed out, my footnotes in recent articles provide this courtesy, and my sources have not, to my knowledge, come under scrutiny by mainstream historians for engaging in misrepresentations and omissions. 36hourblock (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The addition of "a few sentences" to each of a dozen citations can easily mount up, and such additions do tend to make references sections appear cluttered. One or two, yes, if there are very special reasons, but I think a dozen would be over the top. Citations identify sources; they don't save us a trip to the library. The main thing, though, is that adding such text wouldn't significantly address the real issue here, which is how much weight should be given to Service's book. That's a question that should be addressed by experts, so I would suggest inviting watchers of the main article Vladimir Lenin, and members of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page, to join the discussion. A further resort could be to WP:RSN, perhaps. (For future reference, please note that requests at WP:3O should link, not to the article, but to the talk page section where the discussion is taking place.) Stfg (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Stfg - If you want to call in the "experts", be my guest.

I'll give you an example of what I'm requesting. It's easy, "clutters" nothing, and no "trip to the library" - Midnightblueowl owes it to the editor who requests it, especially under these unusual circumstances.

@36hourblock: that was rude, and you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of WP:3O. WP:3O is a general service, not one where you can expect people knowledgeable in your topic area to be present, and it's not one where you can call upon other editors to come along and get deeply involved. I'm not going to call in the experts, or otherwise to dig in deep here; this is your discussion, not mine, and it's up to you how you proceed from here. A condition of giving a 3O is that we haven't been involved with the article or the participants before. I am well aware of what these quotations look like, and the example below doesn't change my view. Copy-pasting from sources is an unusual special measure, which would be copyright violation if we were to overdo it. Moreover, copy-pasting selected passages isn't a sound way to assess the utility of a source. I don't consider that it's called for here. Please remember to sign your posts. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be helpful to add that the reason I think you need "experts" to look at this is that evaluating the utility of a given source really requires familiarity with the broader literature on the subject. That isn't something you'll get from WP:3O request, but is something you'll probably get from the talk pages I mentioned. Also, you didn't ask for just or or two quotations, which might be justified for source verification, but a dozen, which I feel is well over the top. --Stfg (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

These evasions are quite useless to addressing my simple request, a request that is in no way "unusual" or "over the top".

Shall we move to a dispute resolution phase? 36hourblock (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a sensible thing to do. Sorry my 3O offering didn't meet your requirement. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@36hourblock: I'm not sure why you would choose to assert that I "owe it to the editor who requests it [i.e. yourself]" to make the changes which you believe are necessary; that is simply not the case. I don't owe you anything. I agree with Stfg's statement that your comments toward them has been rude, and I personally also feel that your attitude to myself has been equally discourteous. Simply because we have not agreed with your proposed changes to the article (which you insist that I implement in my own time) does not give you permission to behave in this manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin has been selected for DR at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

You are invited to post your comments. 36hourblock (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)