Talk:Zemstvo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments Completing the article must have been an exceptionally difficult task, and I highly appreciate your hard work. I hope my comments will help you to improve the article. I must admit that I was near to quick fail the article because, for instance, the prose is not always clear and concise, and it does not comply with the manual of style guideline for lead sections. After some mediation, I concluded that I had been wrong for the article could be improved through some restructuring.

First of all, I think the article should provide us with a background: previous forms of self-government in Russian history, the principal features of Russian government on the eve of the administrative reform, the reasons of introducing the reform.
I would start the article with the history of the institution.
Vucinich & Emmons is a collection of studies, and each cited study (chapter) should be listed in the biography section.
Could you expand the biography section with one or two further specialised works on zemstvo and cite them? Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Borsoka: I think on your first point we are far apart. I think that users coming to this page will be more interested in what the Zemstvo was and the movement for creating the zemstvo can be its own page which most visitors to this page will not see as their primary interest. However, this is just my opinion and I see yours as perfectly legitimate. Before moving to fail this GAN, I invite you to consider if the Government reforms of Alexander II of Russia page which I link at the beginning of the history section is better suited to covering the background material you desire.

This kind of follows into your second point for which I want to make a purely philosophical critic of the typical Wikipedia historiography. Wikipedia has a tendency to present historical institutions as having a life like a play with either 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) or 5 acts (beginning, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, ending). This can be a useful historiography however it is not the only legitimate one. This article takes a much more institutional approach describing the institution as it was rather than as it came to be. I depart from this historiography in the History section. I do not believe that there is a WP guideline saying that the history section should come before the other sections nor do I think that is a good editorial choice for this article.

Vucinich & Emmons: yes, yes good point. Will fix after we address some of the big picture stuff.

expand the biography: Do you mean further reading or the references? In writing this article I read two textbooks (Fidges and Vucinich) and I can comfortably say I am not willing to read a third on this topic. I think it is perfectly fair to fail the article on the grounds that the sources are not diverse enough. However, I do think these sources are first rate academic sources and if I split of Vucinich into the actual sources rather than citing the collection it would show that the perspective is more diverse that how it appears at first glance. Thoughts? Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points and valid arguments. Give me one or two days to reconsider my approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]