Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irakli Tsereteli/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2019 [1].

Irakli Tsereteli

edit
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Tsereteli was a Georgian politician active in revolutionary Russia, and arguably the most important figure in the Petrograd Soviet until the Bolsheviks took over. Now largely forgotten, he played a major role in leading the Soviet and giving it power within the Russian government. The article was nominated once before several months ago, but failed due to lack of reviews. I'm hoping this time we can resolve that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  • After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks, he returned to Georgia. Tsereteli worked as a diplomat at the Paris Peace Conference, where he lobbied for international recognition and assistance for the newly independent Democratic Republic of Georgia, which largely failed to materialize before the Red Army invaded in 1921. - could you split that, or reword it somehow? It's a lot for once sentence.
Used a semi-colon, is that enough you think?
  • In 1915, during his Siberian exile, he formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism, and developed "Revolutionary Defensism", the concept of a defensive war, which Tsereteli argued was not being conducted at the time. - these are two different thoughts. You should split them into two. For the first, I suggest starting with, "During his 1915 Siberian exile, Tsereteli formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism". Here, I would explain what this term is to benefit the reader. For the second half, the "was not being conducted at the time" is a bit confusing. Could you try rewording that a bit?
Tried to re-word this, but I'm a little uncertain and feel it can be made better. Let me know what you think.
Much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at his family's estate in Gorisa;[3] From a young age" - not to be pedantic (but that's what FAC is for), but if you're using a semicolon, then "from" shouldn't be capitalized.
Thanks. Pedantry is definitely welcome and encouraged.
Much appreciated lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was one of two students given a sentence of five years' exile in Siberia, the longest sentence given." - I'm confused by "longest sentence given." Longest among two people? Among students in general? Longest possible sentence?
Clarified
  • and considering "its acceptance as being in conflict with [his] views" - was this quote by Tsereteli? Or his biographer?
Clarified Tsereteli himself wrote it. It's unclear who he wrote it too, otherwise I'd add that.
  • "After declining the offer to return to Georgia, Tsereteli was sent to the village of Tulun, roughly 400 kilometres from Irkutsk, arriving in early 1902." - make sure you have imperial units for American folks. The sentence could be stronger, something like - "Tsereteli arrived in the village of Tulun in early 1902, located about 400 kilometres (250 miles) from Irkutsk, Siberia's administrative center."
Done
  • "On his release from prison Tsereteli returned to Georgia" - so the Siberian bit, he was in jail? I was confused because he was permitted to move to Irkutsk, and prisoners don't usually have a say.
Exile in Tsarist Russia was a little unusual like that: prisoners in Siberia were not jailed per se, and as a result escapes were quite common (Stalin, for example, was exiled and escaped multiple times in his younger years). I've changed the word "jail" to "exile" so hopefully it makes it slightly clearer.
Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case. It's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suffering from a form of haemophilia, Tsereteli became seriously ill in the autumn of 1905, but was unable to quickly return home as the 1905 Revolution broke out in the Russian Empire.[20] It was only in May 1906 that he returned to Georgia." - so did he not go home because of his illness or because of the revolution? Given the next paragraph, I'm guessing the illness?
Tried to clarify that: he was supposed to go home for rest, but the revolution got in the way.
  • After you quote the first speech, you should end it with a period and continue. Also, the "or indeed anything" felt a bit unencyclopediac.
Fixed
That is a mistake on the article, which I've fixed. Thanks for noticing that.
  • "Stolypin grew increasingly tired of the opposition from the Social Democrats, and feared that his reforms would not be passed" - I had to read this a few times before I realized you weren't talking about the subject of this article. Perhaps put this in the previous section? It feels out of place almost.
Moved this sentence and the next one to the previous section, as they kind of flow well together.
  • "A conspiracy was created implicating the Social Democrats with trying to overthrow the government" - given that there is a link to the coup, could you maybe reword this to be more specific? Such as, "In June 1907..." I don't know what happened after because I'm only reading the article for the first time, and I was confused by the wording. Be more specific with what happened.
This I will have to get back on. I can't recall the specifics of it, and will have to read up on it to best summarize it for here. Give me a couple days to do so.
Thanks, that's the only part that's still giving me a bit of trouble. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to re-word it, but as the alleged conspiracy was less important than the actual arrest, I don't want to place too much emphasis on it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Duma was dissolved on 2 June 1907 and shortly after midnight on 3 June several of the Social Democrats were arrested, including Tsereteli." - using active voice instead of passive voice would make this whole section clearer.
I think I fixed this, but I'm not sure.
  • "Tsereteli also engaged in discussion with other Social Democrats in the Irkutsk region on his views towards the war, and like them would have them published in a journal – Siberian Journal (Сибирский Журнал, in Russian), later replaced by the Siberian Review (Сибирское Обозрение) – that he edited" - the "like them" part threw me, as well as "that he edited", thrown at the very end. Could you try rewording it?
Re-worded, hope that makes it clearer.
It's better. I think it could still be split up more into separate sentences, but I'm not gonna harp on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through his editorship of the journals, Tsereteli both became a mentor to other Siberian Zimmerwaldists and influenced the group's stance on the war, even though he only wrote three articles over the course of the war, making it difficult to fully determine his position." - the ending kinda threw me off. Is there any way you could word it to be a bit more definitive?
Re-wrote, any better?
Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Tsereteli was appointed to the Soviet on 21 in an advisory role" - when?
Sorry, seem to be missing a "March" there. Fixed.
I miss words or do double words all the time, no worries :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about Tsereteli's time as a lawyer?
Unfortunately not. The main source of his life is sub-titled "A Political Biography," and really holds up to that, and no one else really wrote about him.
Limitations of the time, completely understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much from 1932 to 1948. What did he do then?
As noted, there isn't anything out there I'm aware of on this era in his life. Even his own memoirs focus on 1917, which is a shame.

The article is in pretty good shape. I'm sorry the article failed before due to lack of comments. I hope you don't find my comments too burdensome. I happened upon this FAC while I was working on an FAC of my own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for looking over it in such detail, definitely not budensome. Glad to have someone not familiar with the topic look it over, always helps to clarify things I would take for granted. And certainly will take a look at your FAC when I have some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who writes about historical, often forgotten subjects, I'm glad to be detailed in my review. I thank you for your quick replies. I'll support when you clear up the bit about the coup, as it's a well-written article, and I learned a lot about the Russian Revolution through this one figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your hard work on the article. Supporting now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks not carried out (I have no access to these sources)
  • The article appears to be widely researched, and the sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability
  • A couple of minor presentational points:
  • Ref 110: page range format is not consisitent
  • In the bibliography, Trotsky is out of alphabetical sequence

Otherwise, sourcing information is impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I do believer most of the sources here are (or were at one point) available through Google Books, though I also kept to largely prominent scholars (most of them have their own articles here, for what it's worth). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

It is not clear whether the article is meant to be in BrEng or AmerEng. At present we have the English spellings centre, defence, favourable, haemophilia, kilometres, organisations, publicised and travelled and the American center, criticized, defense, and (weirdly) maneuvered. We also have disinterest, which doesn't mean what I think you think it means, and attitute, which doesn't mean anything. I hope to look in again with more substantive comments shortly, but I hope these few orthographical points are of some use. Tim riley talk 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're seeing the result of a Canadian trying to use British variations, and apparently not doing so good. I will admit I don't quite get what you mean in referring to "maneuvered" (is there a British version of it I'm unaware of), or your reference to "disinterest" (a lack of involvement, which fits with Tsereteli's reaction to religion). If there's any other egregious issues please let me know, and I'll certainly give it another pass myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrE users follow the French spelling "manoeuvre" (though rarely using that strange French diphthong, as in "manœuvre"). The OED confirms that "maneuver" is "North American", so if that's your preferred form of spelling for the whole article, that's fine, but you'll want to be consistent throughout. "Disinterested" doesn't mean "not involved with" but means being impartial. One wants one's efforts to be judged by disinterested judges but not by uninterested ones. Tim riley talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations, I was unaware of those and am glad for the advice. I've changed the wording in both cases to avoid any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, do you have time to comment further on the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few hours. I'll comment today if I possibly can. Tim riley talk 10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There are comments, above and below, from reviewers far more expert in the field than I am, but as a complete newcomer to the topic I find this article readable, clear, well illustrated and drawing on a wide range of sources ranging from vintage to recent. It seems to be balanced and impartial, and does not go into excessive detail. A few minor drafting points, which don't affect my support:

  • In Early years and education "more cautioned against" reads oddly. Perhaps "more cautious about"?
Changed
  • In October Revolution "Seen as a threat ... a warrant for Tsereteli's arrest was issued" goes off the rails syntactically. It was Tsereteli, not the warrant, that was seen as a threat.
Changed the wording to make it more clear.
  • In Paris Peace Conference and Europe I think I'd make "the British wanted allies in the region in the event the Bolsheviks allied with the Turks" "the British wanted allies in the region in case the Bolsheviks allied with the Turks" (I had to read this sentence twice to get the meaning, but that may just be me).
Changed.
  • In Exile and later life there is not quite a dangling participle but a slightly odd one in "Initially working with Fedor Dan, whom he had met during his Siberian exile, they clashed", where the intended sense calls for "he" or "Tsereteli" rather than "they..."
Modified wording.
  • In Political views "only Belgium fit" needs to be "only Belgium fitted".
Changed (thanks for that, another British style I'm not used to).
  • In Legacy the first sentence of the second paragraph is missing something at the end: Rex Wade notes that because xxx, and then we stop, when "because xxx" needs to be followed up by "then yyy".
I removed the "because," so it should be more straightforward now.
  • Also in Legacy "an apt, simple form" – a touch editorial but not objectionably so.
Made it more factual and direct
  • A duplicate link to Ukraine seems harmless, but could go.
removed

Very minor points. Happy to support the promotion of this informative and enjoyable article, which seems to me to meet the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 17:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks again for your assistance, especially in the finer points of the BrEng style. I've addressed everything here, but of course if you see anything else please say so. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I've learned much from the article page – and have learned something from this review page too: I had no idea that in any variety of English the past tense of the verb "fit" was "fit". Now I know. I hope to see the excellent article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Without looking further yet, I believe they may have first came out in his memoirs, which was published in 1963 in France. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the first publication, that will present a problem with regards to the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'll take a look at the book and see what can be done. As they are both nominally government-produced, I should be able to find earlier publication dates for them. Just need a couple days to get to the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:: I was incorrect, and both are from the Roobol book. They are cited within as published in 1917 (lead) and 1904 (mugshot). Thoughts on how to proceed? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is said about their provenance in that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first one says: "Tsereteli as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. From a picture photograph." The next: "Tsereteli in the Metekhi prison in Tiflis in 1904." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that doesn't mean they were published on those dates though. Is the Roobol book the earliest publication we can find for both? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) At the moment, yes. The originals would be at the Hoover Institution archives at Stanford University; however that is currently closed to access for at least another year. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately without more information we'd have to assume these are still under copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I'll remove them for now, and keep working on confirming their status. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit
  • This sentence is currently in the lede paragraph: "He was born and brought up in Georgia when it was part of the Russian Empire,". At the very least it needs to have the comma changed to a full stop, but I would recommend moving this to the start of the second paragraph anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
Done
  • "After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks," - I think that this wording maybe relies on a little too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Perhaps something more explicit, along the lines of "After the Bolsheviks seized power of the Russian government during the October Revolution"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I added the qualifier "Bolshvevik-led" in front, just because it wasn't really exclusively the "Russian" Red Army. Hope that works.
  • I would recommend pursuing a more integrated chronological approach in the lead. We mention his death at the end of the second paragraph and then start talking about further thing which he did during his life in the third. That feels a little confused, to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganised it to be more chronological, hopefully it makes more sense now.
  • "a leading Social-Democratic spokesman". I think the leader could be clearer about his specific party membership and ideological bent here, particularly as "Social-Democratic" can have various different meanings. I would recommend something like "Ideologically a socialist, he was a leading spokesman for the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during the era of the Russian Revolutions." That would be much clearer and less ambiguous for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the link to the parties, including the Georgian one, as he was quite prominent there, too.
Thanks for going over it, if there's anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found some free images to use.
Added the link to the specific branch of Orthodoxy.
@Midnightblueowl:, Anything else? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need "(Georgian: ირაკლი [კაკი] გიორგის ძე წერეთელი; Russian: Ира́клий Гео́ргиевич Церете́ли, Irakliy Georgievich Tsereteli;" in the first sentence? It takes up almost the entirety of the line. Might it be better to stick this in as a Note or something? I just worry that it's the sort of thing that puts some readers off my making the whole thing look too complicated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved all that to a note.
  • " A dedicated social democrat," - what do we mean by this? My worry is that social democracy as we now understand it did not really exist at this point. Might "A dedicated socialist" be better (and more appropriate)? Or do you disagree? Just think we need to be clear in the way we present ourselves and avoid anachronism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "social democrat" is fairly established for Tsereteli and the faction he belong to in Georgia and Russia (the RSDRP itself was founded in 1898). It would be inaccurate to describe him as a full-on socialist, as he was more moderate than that (hence the use of "social democrat"). That said I have tried to add a qualifier in the lead there, hopefully it makes it more apparent.
  • "the writings of Charles Darwin," - it may seem a bit silly, but perhaps we could just clarify who Darwin was: "the British biologist Charles Darwin" or something. Just in case some readers don't know or at least might require reminding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief description
Added mention of Christianity at first.
Done
Added
Done
Changed
  • "This refusal, which was publicised with other exiles, cited social democracy, and effectively confirmed Tsereteli's support for the ideology by this point." I think we may need some clarity on this point. If I understand correctly, at this point, "Social Democracy" was a term used by Marxist parties and it meant something explicitly socialist; it was only later, as a result of changes in the German Social Democratic Party, that the term came to be associated with the ort of centre-left, quasi-socialist ideology we now know. I think that here we need to be careful lest we apply the later ideology to Tsereteli. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you mean, and agree the wording needs to be careful to not give off the wrong viewpoint. I added the qualifier that it was social democracy as understood by the RSDLP, though if you think there's a better way to show the distinction without disrupting the flow of the article I'd gladly add it.
  • "became familiar with the Russian social democrats, particularly Marxism" - again, let's be careful here. If by "Russian social democrats" we mean members of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, then we should make that clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've capitalised "Russian Social Democrats", which with the mention prior to the party itself, hopefully makes it clearer.
Done.
Done.
  • The article talks about both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks but does not clarify that they were different factions of the same party, or explain the schism in any way. I'd definitely recommend adding a sentence or two to the main article making this clear. Otherwise I think we rely on the reader having too much background knowledge. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief note to the first mention of both Menshevik and Bolshevik in the article, and mentioned the 1903 split. As Tsereteli had nothing to do with the split I don't want to get too detailed into it, but agree something should be mentioned there.
  • "what type of opposition" - it might be best to specify "anti-war opposition" here as the article has previously referred to the "opposition" in a different context, meaning the anti-government elements of the Duma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted it was against the war.
Cut it down into a couple smaller sentences.
  • "was not strong enough to call a general strike, as the proletariat was not strong enough to overthrow capitalism," - "strong enough... strong enough". Bit repetitive. Perhaps make an alteration to "the proletariat was too weak to overthrow capitalism" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Changed.
Done.
Done
Changed
  • "the Provisional Government claimed it was the legitimate successor to the Russian Empire," - it claimed it was the legitimate successor to the empire's government, not the empire itself (that would be the Russian Republic). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
  • "for the post of Prime Minister" - previously in this section, "prime minister" has always be written in lower case. I'd make sure that this is standardised, whichever you choose (I'd go for the capitalised form, but it doesn't greatly matter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a specific title and used as such throughout, made them capitalised.
Changed.
  • "the two were asked to attend on account of their contacts in Europe, and that neither had a major role in the Georgian government" I'm not 100% clear what the latter half of this sentence means. Could it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made it clearer.
Noted.
Have addressed some of the comments, will get back to the rest shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified
This came up before (above actually), and as I noted it wasn't specifically the "Russian" Red Army, and while it is a rather pedantic point, I feel it is slightly anachronistic to add that qualifier.
Added qualifier
Changed.
Added location.
Changed
Agreed. His papers are housed at Stanford University, but are unavailable for the next few years. I'd ideally like to go and look at them myself when they are available again.
I noted he was against Lenin's Marxist views, as that is more in line with what the source says.
I've changed the wording to make it more neutral, while still noting he's relatively obscure.
Addressed everything here. As always appreciate you taking the time to go through the article in such detail, it really helps to have someone familiar with the topic to critique it. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: How are you feeling about the condition of the article now? Any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I'm very happy to Support this article as an FA. Excellent work, Kaiser Matias, well done. talk) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Irakli_Tsereteli/archive2&oldid=947715728"