Wikipedia

Talk:Evgenia Semenovskaya

Latest comment: 5 months ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
Learn more about this page

Did you know nomination

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
  • Source: Память, Issue 3. Khronika Press, 1980. p. 384
5x expanded by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 386 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC).Reply

  TI'll start with what's in good shape: The articles are all long enough, and they are new enough relative to the nomination date of May 15 (PoRC's 5x expansion was completed on May 10, Bezel was moved into main space on May 17, Zitta was created on May 11, Semenovskaya was created on May 14, and Maksimov was created on May 15). I presume good faith about the majority of the sources, which are either in a language I am unable to read (Russian) or are published in a format I can't access. I was able to look at the No Compromise, Bolshevik Response, and Boris Pasternak citations. Additionally, while I was not able to read any of the Khronika Press material, I was able to find that Khronika was a liberal-democratic publisher during the Soviet era.

The hooks are interesting (my knowledge of Revolutionary Russia is, like that of many people, limited, but party expulsions carry with them a whiff of drama that draws the eye of many readers), and the information is appropriately cited in at least one article.

@Soman: There are, however, some issues—for the most part individually minor and primarily to do with presentability, with a few exceptions that I marked with  , though collectively somewhat numerous—that I would be grateful to see resolved before approving the nomination. I hope they be straightforward to resolve, whereupon I'd be willing to approve the nomination.

  • listed three caveats that participants –: This seems to be missing a verb after participants and before the en dash.
  • The Volya Truda tendency: While tendency does have a meaning referring to a group within a larger political movement, I'm concerned this use of the word may be unfamiliar to a lot of English readers, compared to its more common use. Is it possible to rephrase this as faction?
  • Sixty delegates with a decisive vote from 15 governorates participated in this congress.: Would it be possible to elaborate on why 15 certain delegates had a "decisive vote"? Is this a reference to them being swing votes or undecided compared to the other delegates?
  • as Central Committee members Kolegayev, Bitsenko, Alexandrov, Dobrokhotov and Cherny who joined the RCP(B): First, I think who can be struck; second, this is the first appearance in the article of the acronym RCP(B). Would it be possible to provide the meaning of the acronym on its first appearance? Is this referring to the Bolshevik Party?
  • there were 28 delegates with decisive vote and 3 delegates with advisory vote representing: Should these instances of vote instead be votes?
  • The delegates represented from 15 governorate-level: Should from here be struck?
  • not on Orthodox Marxist platform: Should this be not on an Orthodox etc.?
  • There were 30 delegates with decisive vote and 7 delegates with advisory vote: Vote or votes? (Open to learning that the answer to my earlier question about "a decisive vote" has to do with the singularization of vote in these instances, but also the use of the phrase "a decisive vote" led me to think this wouldn't be the case.)
  • But there were clear discrepancies on the size of the party organizations represented, the: Possibly this should be discrepancies in the. Also, the comma is splicing two independent clauses without a conjunction. Either a conjunction should be added, or the comma should instead be a semicolon or period.
  • with consultative vote: Vote or votes? I also notice that No Compromise states that the Revolutionary Communism delegates were there in a deliberative capacity, but with no votes, not even consultative votes. Does one of the other sources elaborate otherwise?
  • At the Sixth Party Congress of the Party of Revolutionary Communism held in Moscow on 21–22 September 1920 decided: It looks like either At needs to be trimmed, or the phrase it was needs to be inserted before "decided".
  • 12 delegates with advisory vote taking: Advisory vote or votes?
  • the [[Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: This looks like a case of incomplete bracketing.
  •   Vladimir Lenin perceived the programme of the Party of Revolutionary Communism as remaining on the platform of Narodnik utopianism and muddled and eclectic: As this is written in plain prose, it strike me as too near a paraphrase of Their programme which remained on the platform of Narodnik utopianism was muddled and eclectic. Could this be either rephrased in prose or reorganized as quotation?
  •   While recognising that Soviet rule created preconditions for the establishment of a socialist system, the party denied the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship during the transitional period from capitalism to socialism.: This is nearly word for word from Lenin's While recognising that Soviet rule created preconditions for the establishment of a socialist system, the “revolutionary communists” denied the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship during the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. While Lenin's pamphlet was published in Russian in 1920, this text is from Julius Katzer's translation, published in 1964. be This should either be a quotation or paraphrased.
  • 3 workers and a single peasants: Should this be peasant (singular)?
  •   The central party organ was Volya Truda (Воля Труда, 'Will of Labour'), which was published as a daily newspaper from 14 September to 4 December 1918. From 29 December 1918, the daily newspaper was replaced by a periodical with the same title.: This issue is more serious. This is cited to No Compromises, but I was not able to verify the content. The pamphlet does not seem to mention the Volya Truda at all.
  •   initially the editorial contents of Volya Truda was meagre: This is cited to Fleĭshman (1990), but the text there states that the staff of the newspaper was mediocre, rather than that its content was.
  • , briefly served as a people's commissar in 1918: This clause seems incomplete; should this say who briefly served?
  • Few months later: I think this would be A few months.
  • rapproachment with the Bolsheviks not on Orthodox Marxist platform: Should this be on an Orthodox etc.?
  • were defeated by the group of Aleksei Ustinov: Something in this phrasing sounds off. Maybe change to defeated by Aleksei Ustinov's group?
  • After being expelled from the Party of Revolutionary Communism the grouping of Zitta and Semenovskaya: Similar prose issue. Could this be Zitta and Semenovskaya's group?
  • In her works, the lability (mobility) of the cerebral cortex and retina in patients with glaucoma was studied.: Would it be possible to render this in the active voice instead? She studied the lability (mobility) of the cerebral cortex and retina in patients with glaucoma?
  • a proposal of Lenin to appoint: As this is the first mention of Vladimir Lenin in the article, this seems like it should give his name more fully as Vladimir Lenin.
  • On May 9, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars issues the decree: Both a tense and grammatical article issue; this seems like it should state issued a decree.
  • Bezel was part of the effort to unite the Party of Revolutionary Communism with other populist factions, albeit on remaining on the platform of support to soviet power: I'm having a lot of trouble parsing the bolded portion. What is this saying? He was part of the effort to unite the PoRC with other populists, except on—either the tense or word choice or something is keeping this information from getting across.
  • decided to expel Bezel, Semenovskaya, Zitta and Maksimov: As this is the first time Semenovskaya, Zitta and Maksimov are mentioned in the article, it seems their names should be given more fully.
  • When PSR split: Change to When the PSR split?
  • , albeit on remaining on the platform of support to soviet power.: Same problem with parsing as in the Bezel article
  • decided to expel Semenovskaya, Zitta, Maksimov and V. Bezel: As this is the first time Semenovskaya, Zitta and Bezel are mentioned in the article, it seems their names should be given more fully.
  • He was arrested in 1930, and would spend three years at Suzdal prison.: Since this is all in the past, could this be revised to the more straightforward spent three years at etc.? Also, the comma there is a comma splice; it either needs to be removed, or a subject needs to be added to the second clause to make it an independent clause. i. e., either "He was arrested in 1930 and spent three years at Suzdal prison" or "He was arrested in 1930, and he spent three years at Suzdal prison".
  • into internal exile, but was again arrested.: A comma splice to the above: either "into internal exile but was again arrested" or "into internal exile, but he was again arrested".
  • He would live in Moscow again: Could this be revised to the more straightforward and natural "He lived in Moscow again"?

I realize these are numerous, but they are mostly about presentation: grammar, word choice, etc. (although there are a few more serious issues, as marked), so I'm hopeful that they can be resolved readily. Ping me when you feel the issues are amended, and I'll review the articles again. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hydrageans. Thanks for the 5-article review. I think I've attended to all the grammar/language issues. On the other points:
  • 'tendency' can refer to a loosely organized movement. I think it is more appropriate in this context than 'faction' or 'movement' here.
  • On PRK delegates at II Comintern congress having consultative votes, Novoe v zhizni, nauke, tekhnike: Serii︠a︡: Istorii︠a︡ (1974) states that "26 июля 1920 г. представители « революционных ком- мунистов » А. Устинов и П . Сапожников , пригла- щенные на Конгресс с правом совещательного голоса , передали Президиуму Конгресса декларацию ЦК ПРК , в которой выражалась готовность подчиниться решению Конгресса и поставить вопрос о вхождении в РКП ( б )." Now, this is essentially the same as stated in the English translation No Compromises?. The translator of No Compromises? has opted to reword the terminology 'consultative vote' to 'no vote/deliberative capacity'.
  • Lenin quotes now in quotation marks
  • Lenin reference for Volya Truda publication dates corrected
--Soman (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Soman: Thanks for the revisions and explanations. I'm familiar with that definition of tendency but felt unsure if it would be readily legible to a typical reader of the encyclopedia, but if you think faction or movement would suit the appropriate meaning less, I'm satisfied. I'm likewise satisfied with the explanation about consultative votes and with the marking of quotations and correction of Volya Truda references. With this resolved:
  I approve ALT1, with good faith presumed about the hook fact, cited to content in a language I'm not personally able to read. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evgenia_Semenovskaya&oldid=1234959452"