Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nestor Lakoba/archive1

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) 21 October 2019 [1].

Nestor Lakoba

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A national hero in Abkhazia, a region that most of the international community considers part of Georgia, Nestor Lakoba was an early Bolshevik who due to his friendship with Stalin effectively ruled the region as his own fief for a decade (they called it "Lakobistan" due to his control). As Stalin started the Great Purge of the 1930s, his opinion of Lakoba diminished, and so a rival for Stalin's favour, Beria, had Lakoba poisoned. This recently passed GA, and I hope to see it move through here as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
Formats: no issues
Quality/reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose comment: I haven't checked the prose, but while carrying out my sources review I noticed the phrase "As Lakoba was incredibly popular in Abkhazia...". I'd advise the replacement of "incredibly" with something a little less hyperbolic, and more encyclopaedic. Just a suggestion. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the sources. I also made the change suggested, tying it back to his relationship with Stalin, which is more factual and easier to demonstrate. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Fixed

Suggest adding alt text

Added

File:Georgian_soviet_republic1922.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?

Added a source for it.

File:Lenin_stalin_gorky-02_(cropped)_(b).jpg: when/where was this first published?

It is cropped on this image. This is cited as being from a 2014 book by Stephen Kotin (Stalin Vol. I), which cites it from one of the Russian archives, and created by Lenin's sister Maria, who died in 1937. I can see if it was published earlier. I doubt the tag saying it was published in the US prior to 1924, but would the other tag (author dead 80+ years) still be appropriate?

Yes, but you'd still need a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Is there any appropriate ones that would fit it? Kaiser matias (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any earlier publication? If not, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nestor_Lacoba.JPG: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted it was published in Pravda in 1931, a party/state-owned newspaper. I'll have to confirm, but I don't think an author has ever been credited for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived within the next few days if it doesn't not attract more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slightly tied up recently myself, but was thinking this may happen. I'll try and see if I can find some reviewers over the weekend, but if not then all good. It is what it is. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note I have sent some requests for comments, so hopefully some folks stop by. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

The article is well-written and the subject is treated quite evenhandedly. Kaiser has done a great job. There are some thoughts I would like to share.

Intro section

served as the head of Abkhazia after its incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1921.

There was no Soviet Union in 1921. So it would be more accurate to state that Lakoba served as the head of Abkhazia after the Bolshevik victory in 1921 or something along this line.

Changed to conquest, as that is effectively what happened.

Though nominally a part of Georgia with a special status of 'union republic'

For the sake of accuracy, I would suggest replacing Georgia with the Georgian SSR and delinking the next occurrence of the Georgian SSR in that paragraph.

Done.

Immensely popular in Abkhazia

"Immensely" can be seen as a weasel word. IF anything, there were no opinion polls at that time in the USSR. I think it would be enough to just state that he was popular.

Done

Early Bolshevik activities section

Georgia never fully maintained control of the region during this time, and it was under the control of the APC until the Bolshevik invasion of 1921.

This claim needs to be substantiated. The APC was mostly loyal to the Georgian republic; critics even claimed it was subservient primarily to the Georgian interests. The source for this claim (Lakoba, 1990) is also problematic. It is hardly a neutral third-party publication.

That's fair, and I've added a second citation and tried to clarify that there was no real resolution.

Establishment as leader subsection

Lakoba returned to Abkhazia after it had been occupied by Bolshevik Russia, as part of its conquest of Georgia.

Indicating the date, or at least the year, when this occurred would be helpful.

Done

Development of Abkhazia subsection

The Abkhaz historian Stanislav Lakoba (no relation) has argued...

If the parenthetical remark here is to indicate that Stanislav Lakoba was not a relative of Nestor Lakoba, it should be sourced.

Clarified that he is indeed a distant relation, with citation.

The move was unpopular in Abkhazia and saw large-scale public protests, the first of their kind against the Soviet authorities.

The statement is rather bold. I would like to see more reliable sources to support it. There had been not only protests but armed rebellions against the Soviet policies in Georgia well before 1931, for example in August 1924. A revolt in highland Adjara in 1929 against the crackdown on Muslim practices also comes to my mind.

Clarified it was the first in Abkhazia, not the Soviet Union as a whole.

Rivalry with Beria

The finished work, On the Question of the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in the Transcaucasus (К вопросу об истории большевистских организаций в Закавказье) greatly falsified Stalin's role in the region.

For the sake of clarity, I would suggest indicating that this falsification was in fact false aggrandizement.

Done

Death section

As Lakoba was incredibly popular in Abkhazia and well-liked by Stalin, it was difficult for Beria to have him removed.

"incredibly" sounds unencyclopedic and POVish.

Removed it.

Though Stalin was not directly responsible for the death of Lakoba, it is likely he played a role, as Beria would not have been able to eliminate someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval.

Since Stalin’s role is likely, it is still supposed to be a theory and should be properly attributed to its author, say, Ami Knight.

Clarified this idea comes from Knight.

Lakoba was accused of 'national deviation', of having helped Trotsky, and of trying to kill both Stalin and Beria.

To the best of my knowledge, the term to describe this particular type of dissent in the early USSR was "nationalist deviationism". Also, Beria did not attend Lakoba's funeral, but he did see off the coffin on its way back by train to Sukhumi. See Stalin: the court of the Red Tsar by Montefiore, p. 202.

Thanks, have modified that. And to note, my copy of Montefiore's book (the one used in the bibliography), has it on page 206.

Misc.

The article uses both double and single quotation marks. I’m not exactly sure which one is preferable but I think we could opt for one of these. For example, the enemy of the people takes double quotation marks on one occasion and single quotation marks on the other. Also, titles of Russian and Georgian books and pieces of art are italicized throughout the text. I am not sure about Russian, but Georgian is not normally italicized. --Kober^Talk 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when the quotation marks were changed like that, but I've made them all double for consistency. And regarding the italics, a quick read of the MOS suggests that titles should remain italicized, even if foreign words (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works), though I'll readily admit I'm no expert on the MOS.

@Kober: I want to say thanks for going through it. I'm glad to have someone familiar with the region go through it and spot things like you did. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And thanks for a good job. Keep it up! --Kober^Talk 04:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you be willing to support at this point? Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the article meets all criteria. --Kober^Talk 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffman

As part of the GA review, I've compared the article's content with the Kotkin source: Kotkin, Stephen (2017), Stalin, Volume 2: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941, New York City: Penguin Press, ISBN 978-1-59420-380-0. The citations checked out, while I did not see plagiarism nor close paraphrasing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you be willing to support at this point? Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: based on recent improvements; reliable sources; comprehensiveness; and source check. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"This also ensured that during the era of collectivization, Abkhazia was largely spared," This sounds rather elliptical. Maybe "Lakoba successfully opposed the extension of collectivization to Abkhzia."

Done

"Rehabilitated after the death of Stalin in 1953" Rehabilited from what? You have not said that his reputation had been attacked.

Done

"who was in charge of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic" You say above that Abkhazia was part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. You say below that Georgia was under Transcaucasian but I do not think you need to mention that at this point and could just say that Beria was in charge of Georgia.

This is confusing I'll agree, as the states shifted a lot, but at this point it would go "Abkhazia-Georgia-Transcaucasia". That said, I added a note after this line explaining Georgia was part of the latter, as that was the case, and as Beria controlled Transcaucasia (and not just Georgia by this point), it wouldn't be correct to say it like that. Open to other suggestions though, of course.

"Along with his brothers Vasily and Mikhail, Nestor was one of three sons." As you have mentioned two brothers you do not need to say three sons. Maybe "He had two brothers, Vasily and Mikhail."

Done

"Disinterested in religious study, Lakoba was frequently caught reading books banned by the school authorities." This is a non-sequitur.

Cleaned up the wording.

I have cleaned up further, but change it if you are not happy. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"gained wider notability across Abkhazia" "notability" does not seem the right word here. Maybe enhanced his reputation or became better known.

Done

"On 16 February 1918, Efrem Eshba, an Abkhaz Bolshevik, aided by Russian sailors from warships docked at Sukhumi," This is ungrammatical.

Cleaned this up.

" They had met a couple years before when Lakoba had hid with the family." Hid from whom? The article on his wife says from British occupation forces and this is worth explaining in the paragraph above if it is true.

Added that note

"Stalin liked that Lakoba was a good marksman" This is ungrammatical.

Sorry I'm not seeing the issue, could you clarify? On my end, Lakoba was good at shooting, and Stalin liked that aspect, so the phrase works.

You can like that something - e.g. "liked that gun", but not "liked that Lakoba was". Maybe "admired Lakoba's marksmanship". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have made an adjustment.

" held in May 1924. There he was able to acquaint himself with Stalin, who was in the process of consolidating his power, and make a lasting impression on the leader." It would be helpful to explain earlier that he was not previously acquainted with Stalin.

Re-worded to make it more clearer.

"He also took advantage of the korenizatsiia policies, implemented throughout the 1920s, that benefited ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union, instead promoting his own confidants, who were often ethnic Abkhaz." I do not understand this. He took advantage of korenizatsiia policies, instead promoting his own confidants?

Clarified

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Addressed most here. Will get back to the last two points when I can confirm some details. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Everything above is addressed, though I do have the one question regarding the marksman clause. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the last thing above. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He apparently told Sergo Ordzhonikidze that Beria once said that Ordzhonikidze "would have shot all the Georgians in Georgia if it was not for [Beria]" and discussed the rumour that Beria had worked as a counter-informant in Azerbaijan in 1920." I have several queries on this. 1. "apparently told". This is vague. Who is the source? 2. A descriptive phrase such as "the leading Georgian Bolshevik Sergo Ordzhonikidze" would be helpful. 3. The article on him says that he was Georgian - Beria claimed he would have shot all Georgians? 4. What is a counter-informant?

Have made some adjustments that should clear things up.

You have linked counter-informant to double agent, but counter-informant is not mentioned in that article. I would delete counter-informant and say double agent instead. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"Though Stalin was not directly responsible for the death of Lakoba, and Knight suggests it is likely he played a role, as Beria would not have been able to eliminate someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval. This is ungrammatical (you should remove the word "and" before "Knight"). Also it does not make sense. If Stalin approved the murder he was directly responsible.

Again, clarified.

This does not seem any better to me. How about "Knight suggests that Stalin must have authorised Lakoba's murder, as Beria would not have dared to kill someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval." In addition, I would delete "also" in the following sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"(though he did see the coffin back to Sukhumi)" send the coffin back?

Fixed

"he succeeded in fulfilling the aims of a project first begun in 1933 at the start of the Soviet Union's Second five-year plan". What project?

Added the specifics.

"but was burnt down during the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia". "was burnt down" implies that it was deliberate. Is this correct? Who burnt it and why?

That is a source of controversy that goes beyond the scope of the article or the FAC. But in short, it was likely burnt by the Georgian military as a means to attack Abkhaz culture, but like I said that's disputed and not confirmed, so I smoothed the wording a bit.

This is an interesting article and none of the queries are major. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Again have addressed things here, and appreciate your comments. Anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the latest comments here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work here, it really is appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:23, 21 October 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.