Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vladimir Lenin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Vladimir Lenin
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2016 [1].

Vladimir Lenin

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent political figures of the 20th century, a man who established the Soviet Union and whose ideas had a colossal impact on the global communist movement. In recent months it has been awarded GA status and has undergone a peer review; now is the time for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Congratulations on bringing forward what looks like an impressively well-researched article. I am semi-detached from Wikipedia at the moment, largely confining myself to TFA and revising/updating my old FA nominations, with only occasional reviewing. So I doubt I'll be able to give this fine effort the attention it deserves. However, here are a few superficial observations for you to consider:

  • IB: it's not as long as some of those for comparable world figures, but it still plunges into the text. Does all the information in it qualify as "key facts", which is what IBs were originally designed for? Do we, for example, need "Succeeded by..." (is that "key"?), or all the brothers and sisters, or the non-information about children, or the list of "other names"? Worth a thought.
    • A very fair point. I have removed the list of "other names", because no references were provide for it. I have also removed the "Children: None" section, and the "Soviet" part of Nationality. That has cut the infobox down a little bit, although the change is admittedly not substantial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still with the IB, is "Soviet" a nationality? Also, is "Revolutionary" an "occupation" as we generally understand the term?
  • Over-citation. The total number of cited refs (577) is the most I've seen in a WP article by a long chalk, and since most of these contain at least three or four separate book refs, there are probably 2000+ citations in the article. This is fairly staggering. I note a particular tendency to over-cite simple facts: I see no purpose in ref 1, a dictionary definition of "Lenin". And do we need three book references to verify that "Ilya married Maria Alexandrovna Blank in the summer of 1863"? Or five to confirm "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino"? (these are random examples)
    • Ref 1 has been included (not by me, but by someone else) because it provides a useful citation regarding how to pronounce "Lenin"; so it's not there to bolster the definition but rather the pronunciation, so one that basis I would support its continued inclusion. As for the quantity of referencing, this is again something that I would defend; Lenin is a very controversial figure and there may well be individuals trying to change bits and pieces in order to push a particular political agenda - having multiple, clear citations to scholarly biographical studies are very useful in that scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes for those aspects of Lenin which attract controversy, but surely not Ilya's wedding or the family's holiday destination? Or other mundane facts. If this article is promoted as things stand, it will be the 10th longest FA on the basis of wordcount, but the largest of all in terms of overall file size, at 769kb – the current longest FA, Elvis Presley, has 587kb. It might be that none of your other reviewers raises this concern, in which case well and good; I'm not going to labour the point, but I think it should be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to check "p." and "pp." in your page range formats. I have something for an eye for these things, and you should look at ref 6 (Lih) and 25 (Rice), and check for others.
    • I've gone through and corrected all of the errors that I could find here. I think that I've got them all although if anyone else comes upon any then please do let me know so that I can make a correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, but I will watch developments with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I believe we're getting to the stage where this nom can be closed but I'd be happy to hold it open longer if you wanted the chance to revisit in light of the commentary since you were here last. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My current commitments will prevent any further involvement in this review. I am pleased that the article has gathered a number of supports, as I always felt that it was a brave and worthwhile project. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article is potentially of FA standard at first glance, but I don't propose to give it the close reading it merits until something is done about the spelling, which at present is a hotchpotch of English and American. We have criticised and criticizing, center and centre, neighboring and neighbouring, sympathisers and sympathizers. Alongside the BrE baptised, capitalised, emphasising, enamoured, favouring, haemorrhage, labour, normalise, organisation, theorising etc, we have the AmE defense, goiter, honors, misbehavior, realizing, traveling etc. BrE spellings are in the majority, I think, but there is a substantial minority of AmE spellings. I suppose theoretically, under WP:ENGVAR the first version of the page should be found that contains an identifiably BrE or AmE spelling and whichever it is should be adopted for this article, but that isn't possible here, because the first one in which such a distinction is to be found (28 July 2002) contains both BrE – practise (verb) and travelled – and AmEng – license (noun). I'd be happy to standardise the spelling, if wanted, with the aid of a little program I use that makes it a quick and simple task. But standardised it must be if the article is to reach FA standard. – Tim riley talk 08:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That program sounds great, do you have a url for it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, it was cobbled together for me by a techie friend and sits somewhere on my old PC. I've an idea it draws on some available freeware but I'm not sure. Tim riley talk 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. There is a tag on the talk page stating that the article uses British English so I think it best if we standardise it to that. I've gone through the article and made all of the changes that I could spot, namely those which you have already mentioned. If there are any further examples that need changing then please do let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is now all fine. I'll begin a close reading tonight or tomorrow and will report back here a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a dauntingly huge article, and it will take me several goes to do it justice. I'm really sorry to have missed the peer review, where most of the following comments would have been made, but better late than never. First batch, to the end of "Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath":

  • Childhood
    • "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino" – It isn't clear to me why we need to know this.
      • It may not be essential, but it helps provide a better appreciation of Lenin's family background (i.e. that they owned a rural manor and had the spare time to holiday there) and moreover Kokushkino is mentioned again slightly later in the article when Lenin was exiled there, so the initial mention therefore provides some background information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, before the attack" – There are 20 howevers in the text of the article, and in my view every one of them could be removed, to the benefit of the prose.
      • Not sure I agree on this one. In many instances I feel that the "However" is of real benefit to the flow of the prose. That being said, I have removed it from the prose in a number of instances where I feel it is probably superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • University and political radicalisation: 1887–93
    • "convinced the authorities to allow Lenin" – in BrE one convinces that and persuades to. Either "persuaded the authorities to allow Lenin" or "convinced the authorities that Lenin should be allowed to". Ditto for "she convinced the authorities to move her" and other later "convince"s.
  • Early activism and imprisonment: 1893–1900
    • "with Marxist schoolteacher Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya" – rather a cumbersome false title; the prose might flow better if you gave her an indefinite article: with Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya, a Marxist schoolteacher.
    • "authored" – strange and rather horrible verb; wouldn't "wrote" be plainer?
    • "emigre" – "émigré" according to the Chambers and the Oxford English Dictionaries (though the OED doesn't insist on the accent on the first of the two es)
  • Munich, London, and Geneva
  • Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath: 1905–1914
    • "the British Museum library" – I suppose it is an accurate term, but it looks odd: the place is always referred to as "the Reading Room of the British Museum" (with or without capital Rs, according to choice.)

More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more from me on the rest of the text:

  • The phrase "in order to" keeps cropping up, and becomes distracting after several repetitions: there are no circumstances when "in order to" says anything that a plain "to" doesn't.
    • I've found eight instances of this wording in the article, one of which was from a direct quotation. When it comes to the other seven instances, I have left two which I think are fairly necessary and removed the remaining five. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: for my money there are otiose blue links to everyday words including godfather, divorce, speculators, looters, prostitutes, suicide, coma and atheist; we don't link major religions (Jewish, Islamic); and there are 16 duplicate links starting with Kazan University and ending with Pravda.
    • Right, I've gone in and removed all of those duplinks, and removed a few of the everyday words (although I try to be cautious here as some words may seen common for those of us in Western contexts but may be less familiar for those in other parts of the world). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it difficult to decide whether I can support promotion to FA: I found the article dauntingly long, but on the other hand I didn't see any extensive sections that strayed from the point or seemed over-detailed, and the prose is readable throughout. On balance, I think the article will meet the FA criteria, subject to the minor tweaking mentioned above.

Final point: I'm sure this has been very carefully considered already, but the title of the article surprises me: I don't think I've ever seen him referred to anywhere else as "Vladimir Lenin" rather than as "Lenin" tout court on the one hand or "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" on the other. But having made the point, I do not press it. Tim riley talk 07:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments, Tim! I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read through it and provide your opinions on how it could be improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm adding my support now, and I also add my congratulations for your Herculean labours on this important subject. Tim riley talk 21:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Lenin.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, File:Marx6.jpg, File:Engels.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5_May_1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev.jpg, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin.WWI.JPG
    • Thus far, I have dealt with File:Lenin.WWI.JPG, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, and File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but if you're going to use the "published anonymously or under a pseudonym before 1943" provision, you need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication (not just creation) too. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed File:Marx6.jpg and File:Engels.jpg and replaced them with File:Karl Marx 001.jpg, which is definitely free for us to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Lenin.WWI.JPG should be fine because we know that the author died over 70 years ago. File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg should be okay too. I'll remove File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg and File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg from the article as I cannot ascertain when they was first published nor the name of the individual who took these photographs. That leaves File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg, and File:Lenin.jpg for me to deal with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also removed File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, and File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Unterschrift_Lenins.svg: what is the original source of the signature being vectorized, and what is the copyright status of that original?
    • Unfortunately, I cannot find this information nor can I find information on the Russian legal restrictions surrounding the copyright (or lack thereof) surrounding signatures. Given that this image is very much non-essential in this article, I am simply removing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenin_Age_4.jpg: who is the author and what is his date of death?
    • As this was an artistic rendition that was produced in the 1940s (albeit based on an earlier photograph taken in the 19th century), I am unsure as to whether this image can be used. Thus, I have removed it and replaced it with File:Dom ulyanovyh.jpg. As the Russian Federation permits freedom of panorama for buildings (although not sculptures) then this alternative should be acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nadezhda Krupskaya portrait.JPG needs a US PD tag and author date of death, and can you provide a translation of the source title?
  • File:A_A_Bogdanov.jpg: second source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Iskra.jpg: if this was published in Switzerland, why are we applying Russian copyright?
    • Good point, although I'm having real trouble with finding any tags that apply to Swiss publications right now. Any pointers would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would this apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately I don't think it will. That tag states that "this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain". I know not of such a statement within a reliable source. Given the problems with this image, I've decided to remove it from the article and replace it with File:House of Lenin in Zurich.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tov_lenin_ochishchaet.jpg: licensing is confusing - there's a note saying it isn't PD in the US, but a tag saying it is. Which is correct?
  • File:Lenin-office-1918.jpg needs author date of death and US PD tag, and is tagged as lacking source details
  • File:Lénine_mosaïque.jpg: a photographic reproduction of a 2D work does not typically garner a new copyright. What is the copyright status of the pictured mosaic?
    • Again, I can't find the copyright status of the mosaic, so I have removed this image from the article. To replace it, I have added File:Lenin, Brezhnev, Bodiul etc. (1976). (14241235186).jpg, which appears to be acceptable (although do double check to see if I am correct in that assessment.). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of some of these issues, simply because most of the article's many images have problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Images should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added an image of Lenin's Mausoleum to the article (File:Russia-2007-Moscow-Kremlin Senate at night.jpg). I think that it is acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria; I think that I have now covered everything. Again, thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

I'll return in a day or so to have a more complete review and will do a source review unless I'm beaten to it, but a couple of problems spring out, which I think may just be the use of the wrong name or date in the sfn template:

Kudos for taking on such a mammoth and heavyweight subject and I look forward to reading it more closely soon. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for both your kind words and your well-spotted notes on areas in need of correction, SchroCat! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor tweaks made: feel free to revert or alter if I've erred.

I'm going through this, but it'll be in chunks, given the sheer scale of the work. That's my first problem with the article. It is currently at around 15,000 words (95 kB) and it may be worth reading the opening section of WP:Article size. I see that most of the sections—and some of the subsections—already have their own stand-alone articles (Early life of Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin, etc) so I wonder if we need such a weight of information left in this article. The opening paragraph of #Childhood: 1870–87, for example, contains a lot of information about the ethnicity of Lenin's father, and the level of education received by his mother, but I'm not convinced it's all needed in this article if it's a repetition of the information in Early life of Vladimir Lenin. The six and a half lines of text (on my monitor) could convey the important information in a couple of lines, I think.

A second point (mostly minor) is on the infobox. I agree that almost all the information it contains is worth inclusion, but it may be worth thinking if the top two offices need to include the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields? I think Lenin's holding of the office and the dates should be enough. (Incidentally, although it's pointless fluff in 99% of articles, at least the "Resting place" field is of relevance, use and interest in this case!)

I'll be back soon with the text review, but the initial reading of the first couple of sections showed no problems I could see. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. At your advice, I have trimmed the information on the educational background of Lenin's mother. However, I disagree on the issue of Lenin's ethnic background, because this is an issue that has been debated several times at the Talk Page, suggesting that it is a topic that interests a great many people. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, did you have any further thoughts on the article and this FAC? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support (on prose), but it is a slightly gruding one. At over 16,000 words I think this is probably too in-depth for what is supposed to be an summary article - particularly given the numerous spin-off articles that focus on the varying phases of his life. I think that this piece could probably be reduced by about 25%, which would raise ease of reading and understanding immeasurably. That said, as it stands, the prose is very well written and the article fulfils the FAC criteria on prose as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit

Update as of 6 August: so it's been almost a month and a half now since this FAC was nominated and we have one statement of support and none of oppositon. Can we get any others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Reading over the article I cannot inf a reason to oppose. I think my only suggestion would be to expand the legacy section which seems a little thin. Particularly a photo of a Lenin statue being toppled would be a nice addition, demonstrating the ambiguity of his legacy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, although I doubt that many — if any — such images would be in the Pubic Domain. Thank you for your support anyway; this brings us to a total of two [now three! - 9 August] statements of support; none of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Graham11

edit

I believe that quote boxes are only permitted for pull quotes, but most of the quotations in quote boxes in the article do not repeat text from the article. Graham11 (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think that that's an actual policy here at Wikipedia. Why, I've passed articles as FAs before (i.e. Mortimer Wheeler, Margaret Murray) which have quote boxes in them that are not pull quotes, and plenty of other FAs have them too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the following from MOS:QUOTE not apply equally to {{quote box}}?

The template also provides parameters for attribution. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{pull quote}} a.k.a. {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes).

Graham11 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, too, that I might not have been bothered to raise this if there weren't a dozen of them throughout the article. Graham11 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Midnightblueowl in case my comment slipped under the radar. Graham11 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes I've missed this. I'll remove the quotation marks from the boxes. Thanks for the comment, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Would the spirit of it not further preclude the use of {{cquote}}-alternatives such as {{quote box}} for non-pull quotes? That seems to be reinforced by the documentation for {{quote box}} (which was presumably established by consensus) which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. […] This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page" [emphasis in original]. Graham11 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Midnightblueowl in case I slipped through the cracks again. Graham (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, yes, sorry, I missed this message again. As I said before, the use of quote boxes such as these is pervasive across Wikipedia; they are commonly found in FAs and GAs. It may also be worth noting that no other editor has raised the same issue as you have, either at this article or at any other FAC that I have been involved with. This being the case, I am hesitant about making such a drastic change to the formatting of this article. Perhaps we should open this up to further comments from other editors? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Even if the use of quote boxes like this were pervasive on Wikipedia – and personally, I can't say that I've ever seen an article with so many – other stuff existing does not mean we can disregard wider-scale consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL). And you didn't answer my question. Graham11 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you recommend by done with the quotations in question? Mass removal? Changing the format of the boxes to something else? Surely these would all be fairly drastic changes, all for an issue that—(and I really don't mean to be disrespectful or dismissive by saying this—only one editor has raised concerns about throughout the whole process of GAN, PR, and FAC. It's something that I just don't see as being an issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote boxes are an excellent feature and one of the best ways I have seen to illustrate articles on a historical person known for their writings. The only one's I might support removing are those that are not written by lenin himself. I have never seen these quote boxes used for actual pull quotes that repeat text written in wikipedia's voice - only for direct quotes from works that somehow serve as an illustration of the topic of the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·
@Midnightblueowl: Yes, I am proposing that the quote boxes be removed (or at least all but one or two, if nothing else). While other editors may not have raised the issue, that doesn't mean that we can override a central consensus as codified in the MoS and the template documentation (as is discussed in WP:CONLEVEL). I don't think that compliance with the MoS is "a drastic change" – in fact, it's explicitly required by criterion 2 of the featured article criteria. And the argument that these quote boxes are "pervasive" is, as SMcCandlish has previously described, "a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS affair". Graham11 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that removing the quote boxes would be a real mistake and would damage the article in multiple ways. They not only improve the aesthetic appearance of the article but they also allow the reader to gain an insight into Lenin's own approach to various issues, in his own words. Moreover, I don't really see what difference it makes it we have one or two, or we have twelve such boxes. If you oppose them on MoS grounds then why concede to the idea of retaining one or two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Such a concession would be in the interest of compromise and would be made if, and only if, an argument can be made that one or two of them are so essential to the article that their inclusion is an exceptional circumstance (per WP:IAR). That being said, I have seen no argument that an exceptional circumstance exists here. And while I understand that you disagree with the MoS on the basis of aesthetics and the value of (in your words) "allow[ing] the reader to gain an insight into Lenin's own approach to various issues, in his own words" (though with respect to the latter point, I still don't see why the quotations aren't in the main text if they're really that insightful), if you are wanting a change to the current consensus, that is an issue for WT:MOS, not an FAC. Graham11 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is is possible that hundreds of books on the history of Russia's leadership and Lenin in particular exist using normal block quotations, and no decorative, cutesy quote framing or side-barring gimmicks, if décor of that sort is so essential? Obviously it is not. It is magazine and blog stylization designed as a WOW! CHECK THIS OUT! tacky reader lure. WP has no need of hooks and teasers. This is not an advertising-supported site, and has no incentive trying to "capture eyeballs" and steer them for as long as possible on our pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from an author's works fulfill the same function that pictures of a painters works do - they illustrate the topic and provide helpful insight into the author's style and work that cannot simply be put into the running prose. Your purist rant about advertising and magazin style seems both misplaced and unhelpful here. This is again one of the cases where trying to enforce one's own aesthetic preferences on the work of others wielding rules as weapons to do so, helps no one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I forgot to mention in my last comment that I still don't think that you have answered my question from 26 August (or 31 August).

Would the spirit of [the previous quotation from the MOS] not further preclude the use of {{cquote}}-alternatives such as {{quote box}} for non-pull quotes? That seems to be reinforced by the documentation for {{quote box}} (which was presumably established by consensus) which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. […] This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page" [emphasis in original].
— User:Graham11 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, how can the inclusion of all of these quote boxes be reconciled with WP:CONLEVEL? Graham11 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation of templates is not written by any meaningful consensus - and WP:CONLEVEL explicitly gives documentation as a kind of "policy" written by a single individual that therefore has not particular status. And even if it were this would be a perfect place to apply IAR because enforcing MOS rules strictly and agrressively makes both the article worse and in this case hurts the community and has not positive effects for the reader or for the community. So I think you ought to drop the MOS stick here and let the nominator and the consensus of reviewers decide what to do with the boxes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Алый Король

edit

Of course OPPOSE. Nothing said about his philosophical ideas, nothing about Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and so on. This representation of Lenin as poor as representation of Marx in English Wikipedia. I am aware, that it's pretty difficult to ask for more, but it COULD be written, if not today, maybe tomoorow, with all details about his political ideas, contribution to study of genesis of capitalism in Russia, about Widerspiegelungstheori, about polemics with other Marxists. It SHOULD be written one day, just now it's GA but NOT FA bu any means. --Алый Король (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty understanding what this comment is actually trying to say, but its claim that the article doesn't discuss Lenin's ideas is — in my view — erroneous. We have a whole section on "Political ideology" and it is six paragraphs long. Yes it could be longer, we could discuss Lenin's ideas in greater depth, but then the article would be even longer than it already is. Lenin wrote voluminously over the course of his life, enough to produce a many, many-volumed "Collected Works" but we really cannot try to cover it all in this one article; we have had to keep things concise. Moreover, we already have articles on Leninism to deal with Lenin's thought in greater depth. Furthermore, the specific claim that "Nothing said about his philosophical ideas, nothing about Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and so on... contribution to study of genesis of capitalism in Russia, about polemics with other Marxists" is also erroneous; in this article we mention all of these things in the main biographical sections, we just don't go into them in particular depth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 9 August

edit

We now have three statements of support and one of opposition. The reason given for the statement of opposition is the belief that the article does not go into sufficient detail on Lenin's ideological beliefs. This, however, clashes with the comment provided by another user that the article is already too lengthy. For this reason I am essentially caught between a rock and a hard place! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you, MBO, that lengthening the article would be a net negative. It already covers Lenin's beliefs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • I commented at PR, where my queries were dealt with, but I have a few further points.
  • "Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined a zemlyachestvo (a university society)." This seems a non-sequitur.
  • "the Ministry of Internal Affairs exiled him to his Kokushkino estate" This implies that he had inherited the estate on his father's death, but you have not said so.
  • "While involved in producing a news sheet, Rabochee delo ("Workers' Cause"), he was among 40 activists arrested and charged with sedition" Where?
  • "He spent this time writing, focusing on the revolutionary potential of the working-class; noting that the rise of industrial capitalism in Russia had led large numbers of peasants to move to the cities, where they formed a proletariat, from a Marxist perspective he argued that they would gain class consciousness and then violently overthrow Tsarism, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie to establish a proletariat state that would move toward socialism." There should be a full stop or semi-colon after "proletariat".
  • I'm certainly open to dividing this sentence into smaller chunks if necessary, but I'm not sure that the proposed change here is the right one; it would perhaps work if there was a comma after "potential of the working-class", but at present it is a semi-colon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in April 1906 the Mensheviks condemned Lenin for supporting violence and encouraging bank robberies to obtain funds" I think I mentioned this before. You should explain his role in supporting bank robberies before saying that he was condemned for it. You later mention in passing his role in the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery and I think you need to explain his role in violent crime to raise money for the Bolsheviks.
  • Right, I believe that I have dealt with this issue now. I introduce Lenin's support of bank robberies before mentioning that the Mensheviks criticised him for doing so. I have also added a little bit more information on the nature of these robberies than previously existed. I do think it important however that we do not over-emphasise this issue in the prose. Lenin was supportive of these robberies but as far as I can tell from the reliable sources he wasn't actually active in carrying them out; the organisation of these criminal activities was left largely to Leonid Krasin and carried out by the likes of Stalin. Lenin, meanwhile, was busy with other activities. For instance, Robert Service, in his key biography of Lenin, doesn't even feel it noteworthy to mention the Tiflis bank robbery! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA article on the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery cites Roman Brackman's 2000 book on Stalin as saying that Lenin was a leading organiser and received a large part of the money. Brackman's book got a good review at [2] and Service would not have been aware of it as his biography was published in the same year. I realise that this is only one source and you have read many others, but I think it would be worth you looking at the sources of the article on the robbery. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here, he became a close friend to the French Bolshevik Inessa Armand; their friendship continued until 1912" Comments below and the article on Armand say that the friendship continued until her death in 1920.
  • Very true. They corresponded and remained close in that manner until her death, however they only lived in the same location together until 1912. That being said, I can see how this wording is far from ideal, so I have restructured and rewritten the latter part of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin ultimately relented to this proposal" This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "accepted this proposal".
  • I'm open to a change of wording here, although the current prose makes it clear that Stalin was initially hesitant to such a change and only later came to agree with it. I don't think that "Stalin accepted this proposal" quite conveys the same meaning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leninism distinguished itself from established variants of Marxism by the emotional intensity of its liberationist vision" I do not understand what "liberationist" means here.
  • "Conversely, he derided Marxists who adopted from contemporary non-Marxist philosophers and sociologists." Ungrammatical - adopted what?
  • "Before taking power in 1918," 1917?
  • "Lenin was an internationalist and a keen supporter of world revolution, deeming national borders to be an outdated concept and nationalism a distraction from class struggle." But "Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination". This seems contradictory. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand it correctly, Lenin's view was that all national groups should have the right to self-determination and the right to exist free from imperialism and foreign domination, however he hoped that once capitalism was eradicated then all national borders would be abolished and all humanity would co-operate together. Accordingly, states would become a thing of the past and pure communist society would develop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is two different concepts. In the article you say that he thought nationalism was an outdated concept and a distraction from class struggle, in your comment above that he believed that national borders would become outdated once the communist utopia was established. Dudley Miles (talk)

Comments by Graham Beards

edit
  • Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich is a novel – extracts from "The Red Wheel". Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of Solzhenitsyn's passages about Stalin in August 1914 are known to completely fictitious. And, I cannot see where this information is given. (My copy of "Lenin in Zurich" is the Bodley Head Edition, 1976)
  • It is true that it is a novelised account of real events. It has however, been described as having been "solidly researched| in this review from a Professor of Slavic languages that appeared in The New York Times. It is only used to bolster two citations, both of which are also supported by other, more solidly historical works, so if it is decided that it should be excised then that will not cause any problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an aficionado of Solzhenitsyn but his novel has no place here as a source. Graham Beards (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're convinced that it isn't an appropriate RS then I am happy to remove it from the article. It certainly isn't essential by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should go. Graham Beards (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Lenin biographer David Shub, writing in 1966" – Shub's preface is dated 1965.
The quote is from the preface, which is dated 1965. Graham Beards (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well in that case I'll change it to 1965 then. Well spotted! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin spent his final years largely at his Gorki dacha" (figure legend) – this is not a dacha, which is typically a humble, rustic abode (little more than a shed in my experience). It should say "mansion in the countryside" or "rural mansion". Graham Beards (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on this point. According to Wikipedia's article on the dacha, it is "a seasonal or year-round second home, often located in the exurbs of Russian and other post-Soviet cities." While such dachas are typically small and wooden, this is not always the case, particularly not when their resident is someone who is very wealthy or powerful. Lenin's Gorki home certainly was a "second home", located in a ruralised exurb, and thus meets with the definition of dacha that we have here at Wikipedia. Moreover, we have some external sources, such as this one from a Russian tour company, which refer explicitly to Gorki Leninskiye as "Lenin's dacha". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's two unreliable sources. See this one [3]. A compromise could be "country house". Graham Beards (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm certainly not committed to preserving "dacha" here, and "mansion" is clearly an appropriate description of the building. I'll change the three instances of "dacha" in the prose to "mansion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Graham. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am impressed with the work on this article. I have a few more concerns. There are some ugly fused participles:
  • "They continued their political agitation, with Lenin writing for Iskra and drafting the RSDLP programme"
  • "with Lenin translating Marx and Friedrich Engels' 1848 political pamphlet"
  • "with it passing into law in April"
  • "with Pipes noting that Lenin was"
  • "He stayed in close contact with the RSDLP operating in the Russian Empire"
  • I'm not sure that I agree on this one. Here the sentence indicates that Lenin stayed in contact with other RSDLP members. The use of "with" here signifies something quite different to what it signifies in the other examples that you have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need "who were operating". Graham Beards (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I will add this into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be others, please check.

These can be dealt with by recasting as "and Lenin wrote", replacing the "with" with a comma or dash, using a possessive "with its passing", or a simple past tense "and Pipes noted". Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my Support now, thank you for your hard work on this contribution. Graham Beards (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 16 August: We now have four statements of support and one of opposition. However, as stated above, the one voice of opposition stated that they want to see the page expanded, an idea which myself and others believe would be a very bad move given that this is already a very long article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 22 August: Five statements of support and one of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too hung up about numbers, we're over the traditional minimum total of supporting statements required but it's the comprehensiveness of the supporting reviews that matters the most (and they are generally comprehensive here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started the normal read-through I would perform before considering promotion, I've noticed grammatical errors that indicate the need for a copyedit. For example, I fixed one instance of "which" being used for a restrictive clause, and there are others. I think someone fresh with an eye for grammar needs to go through this. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the instances of "which"; the only one that was restrictive was in a quote box. I don't know if someone edited them after Andy's request. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

edit

Note that this version is the one on which I'm commenting. Disclaimer that I'm not checking image copyrights or spot-checking sources, and am assuming that all citations support the relevant statements. As usual, I've not read other people's reviews in order to come at the article without preconceptions, so I might be repeating points others have made.

General
  • To get one thing out of the way, I don't feel the number of citations is excessive. Given that the article has 15,000 words of readable prose and is on a deeply controversial figure who tends to polarise opinion, it's understandable that sourcing will need to be heavier than for comparable figures about whom there's a broad consensus, as multiple views often need to be taken into account. The number of references is comparable to other FA-level biographies of similar length on contentious figures, ranging from Michael Jackson to Ronald Reagan, to Jesus—hell, even Juwan Howard, possibly the least-contentious person imaginable, has over 350 references.
  • The hyphenation is inconsistent; throughout the article "Marxist-Leninist" uses a hyphen, but "Marxism–Leninism" uses an en-dash. Pick one and stick to it;
  • There are some minor glitches with grammar and spelling. These are all (as best I can tell) minor (eg "Euromaiden" instead of "Euromaidan") and inevitable on a high-traffic article, but since the promoted version will be the de facto "clean version" they should all be cleaned up before promotion goes ahead.
Lead
  • Lenin's government was led by the Bolsheviks — now renamed the Communist Party — and based soviets seems to have lost some words and acquired some (non-MOS-compliant) spaced em-dashes;
    • This initially stated "Lenin's government was led by the Bolsheviks — now renamed the Communist Party — with some powers initially also held by elected soviets" until another editor changed it. I have reverted this particular passage to its previous form, although removed the spaces between the em dashes as per MOS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Anna (born 1864) and Alexander (born 1868), before Lenin was born as Vladimir "Volodya" Ilyich in Simbirsk on 10 April 1870, and baptised several days later. They were followed by three more children, Olga (born 1871), Dmitry (born 1874), and Maria (born 1878)—because Vladimir's patronymic is given but not any of the others, it gives the impression (particularly to readers who aren't familiar with Russian naming conventions) that for some reason he was the only one of the family to have one, or even that "Vladimir Ilyich" was a double-barrelled first name;
  • It might be worth mentioning Ilya's age at his death (54), and possibly including a photo of him. That father and son both died of similar causes at almost exactly the same (relatively young) age is something commented on quite often, even if we just point out the ages and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions;
    • Unfortunately we may well face problems in using a photograph of Ilya because the one used on the Ilya Ulyanov article doesn't appear to be in the Public Domain (it has a tag claiming that it is, but the whole thing seems pretty dubious). My concern about adding the age of Ilya's death is that it might set a precedent for someone to call for other individuals mentioned in the article to also have their death ages added, which would then just lengthen the article even more; I'm not dead against the idea, however, and would be interested to hear what other interested persons thought about this suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutionary activity
  • Is He began a romantic relationship with Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya, a Marxist schoolteacher correct for this period? The version of their relationship I learned (admittedly, from the 1980s before the archives were opened and when even western biographies relied on Soviet propaganda) is that they were no more than acquaintances in this period, and their romantic relationship only really began after their exile when they arranged to marry in order to be exiled to the same village;
    • A very interesting point. Rice (p. 41) certainly describes Lenin as Krupskaya's "boy-friend" in this period, although Fischer (in his 1964 biography) is far little less clear about the nature of the relationship. I cannot access the Read source at present but will try to do so in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say, don't necessarily take my comments here as correct, as they're based on pre-1991 sources, when even western hatchet-jobs were relying on Soviet sources for the basic facts about the Russian periods of his life. The Soviet version was that she was just an activist, and when they were both exiled at the same time Lenin wanted a fellow-Marxist in the same village so he would have someone to talk to so initially applied for her to be his amanuensis, and when that was rejected they agreed to marry. This may well be total bullshit—all Soviet sources on the Revolution have to be taken with an extreme pinch of salt, and "he dedicated his life entirely to the party, only getting married when he felt it would help him write" suits the personality cult very well; take anything written after the archives were opened a lot more seriously. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could probably do with a photograph of Krupskaya here, both to break up a rather large block of text, and to include a woman among the (necessary) many pictures of grim-looking men who glower out of the article;
    • We used to have one in the article but sadly there proved to be too much concern surrounding whether it was a Public Domain image or not. I looked for other images of Krupskaya at this stage in her life, but again, there were the same problems surrounding the copyright status of the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenin was involved in setting up a Bolshevik Centre in Kuokkala, Grand Duchy of Finland, which was at the time a semi-autonomous part of the Russian Empire, before the Bolsheviks regained dominance of the RSDLP at its 5th Congress, held in London in May 1907. appears to conflate two unrelated facts (unless the setting up of the Centre somehow helped him take control of the Party);
  • Lenin disliked Paris, lambasting it as "a foul hole", and while there he sued a motorist who knocked him off his bike; likewise, what do these two statements have to do with each other?
  • Why are we talking about his publishing a book in September 1917, and then jumping back to February? Because 1917 is the most significant year in his life (and at least arguably in the history of the world), it's important for the chronology of this particular section to be precise;
    • I do appreciate your point although I think that the current arrangement works better. The reasons for this are threefold. First, the book (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism), while being published in September, would have been written earlier. Second, the contents of Imperialism have some connections to Lenin's thoughts on the First World War, which supports the location of the two paragraphs together. Third, if we are to position the discussion of the book between the paragraphs discussing the events of August and October, then we will have to stick it slap bang in the middle of a section discussing the build up and outbreak of the October Revolution. In my opinion it would be a real mistake to place it there, because it would really carve up the flow of that section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin's government
  • Is three-quarters of its coal and iron deposits being transferred to German control actually correct, or was it actually three-quarters of operational mines? Siberia has vast mineral reserves;
    • In this I have simply followed the wording found in Pipes (p. 595), who states that they were based on contemporary estimates at the time. Perhaps many of the coal and iron deposits in Siberia had yet to be discovered? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gulag Location Map.svg is a bit misleading, as it shows the post-WW2 borders and includes places like Konigsberg/Kaliningrad which were nowhere near Russia or the USSR in Lenin's lifetime.
  • I've replaced it with a Gregori Goldstein image: File:Lenin Krupskaya and Ulyanova in car at Red Army parade full photo 19180501.jpg. It's not a clear picture of Lenin, but at least is one that is clearly Public Domain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor nitpicks. Given the nature of Wikipedia, it's inevitable that there will be some glitches on a high-traffic lengthy article, and none of them are issues worth opposing over, so I support. ‑ Iridescent 02:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus

edit

Comments by Amakuru

edit
  • Lead:
    • "Expelled from Kazan Imperial University for participating in protests against the Russian Empire's Tsarist regime, he devoted the following years to a law degree" - how did he study a degree after being expelled from university? And what was he studying at Kazan before being expelled?
    • "with some powers initially also held by elected soviets" - despite the wikilink it's not clear to me what a "soviet" actually is; perhaps a brief clarification?
  • Childhood: 1870–87:
    • I think it would be better if the link, and nickname, for his older brother occurred on the first mention (and Alexander (born 1868)) rather than on the second mention (Lenin's elder brother Aleksandr "Sasha" Ulyanov was studying at). (Assuming this is the same brother, but if it isn't, then why isn't the other one mentioned?) Also, the spelling should be consistent as either Aleksandr or Alexander.
    • Related to this, there is a discrepancy on Alexander's date of birth. This article says 1868, but the linked article for him says 1866.
  • University and political radicalisation: 1887–93:
    • [Lenin's mother] was instrumental in convincing the Interior Ministry to allow him to return to the city of Kazan: how did she achieve that? Was she well connected? A bit more explanation might be useful.
    • This Marxist view contrasted with the view of the agrarian-socialist Narodnik movement, which held that the peasantry could establish socialism in Russia by forming peasant communes, thereby bypassing capitalism. This view developed in the 1860s with the People's Freedom Party and was dominant within the Russian revolutionary movement: this is a little confusing. I'm not sure which "this view" the second sentence refers to. Is it Lenin's Marxist view, or is the Narodnik view?
    • Although opposing this perspective, Lenin was influenced by agrarian-socialists like Pëtr Tkachëvi and Sergei Nechaev, and befriended members of that movement: again, which of the two perspectives did he oppose? Presumably the Narodnik one? Some clarity needed.
    • How did he manage to study in Kazan without being in the university? And also while devoting time to his Marxist readings? It seems quite amazing that he completed a law degree in three years (given these usually involve *a lot* of reading and library time), while not in the university and also devoting lots of time to something else... Some more clarity on how he did this please.
      • When Lenin returned to Kazan, he did not continue to study there, he merely resided there. He later gained an external degree from the University of St Petersburg. I don't really know how Lenin juggled his studies of the law with his study of Marxism, but clearly it was possible because he did pass his exams. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar to the above, how did his mother persuade the University of St Petersburg to allow him to take exams, give he hadn't even studied there?
  • Munich, London, and Geneva: 1900–05:
    • becoming the country's most successful underground publication for 50 years - does this mean it was the first such successful one since 50 years in the past, or does it mean it became the most successful and remained so the subsequent 50 years? In either case, what was the publication that it replaced in the success stakes from 50 years earlier, or that replaced it 50 years later?
    • How long was Lenin's erysipelas illness?
    • Enraged at the Mensheviks, Lenin resigned from the Iskra editorial board - why was this? Was Iskra particularly allied to the Mensheviks? The last we heard of it, Lenin had to retire from the board due to ill health, and it moved to Geneva. It's not clear what happened to Iskra in the interim.
      • Iskra belonged to the whole RSDLP party, which meant that both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks worked on it. Lenin didn't really like working with the Mensheviks, hence his decision to leave the editorial board. Do you think that the prose could be altered to make this clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath: 1905–14:
    • here he tried to exchange those banknotes stolen in Tiflis that had identifiable serial numbers on them - did he succeed?

More later  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I was planning to have one more pass either tonight or tomorrow, both to check over the things I already raised and to look through the remaining sections. Although basically I'm supporting. The points I'm raising are just things that I think would be good to clarify/improve, but the article is in my opinion very high quality. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There have been no new comments here for twelve days now, and the article has seven declarations of support for it passing as a Featured Article. Given that this FAC has now been open for just short of three months, might it be time to think about bringing it to an end? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2016 (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/Vladimir_Lenin/archive1&oldid=1136094801"