Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heads of government of Russia/archive2

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:13, 8 September 2014 [1].

List of heads of government of Russia[edit]

List of heads of government of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of heads of government of Russia. Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
    • Too many redlinks. One assumes the head of government of Russia is sufficiently notable that everyone in it should have an article.
      • If I get the time I will create them. Articles about Russian politics before 1917 are underexposed in enwiki, but I try to do the best to create at least stubs
        • Thanks
    • Why so few pictures during the Soviet era?
      • There are several reasons, one is the traditional copyright issues
        • Perhaps, but three random ones I picked from the Soviet era all had photos in their own articles. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The pictures are non-free, so they should be used sparsely in articles--Tomcat (7) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they qualify to go in the individual articles, it seems that they qualify for the list article. They aren't being used under fair use, presumably, since none of the articles are about the pictures. But I admit to not being an image copyright expert. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Delegate comment: No, inclusion in another article does not give an image a "free pass" to be used in a list. There is a need for contextual significance for all non-free images. @Crisco 1492: will be able to clarify or correct on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Russian Soviet Republic" is a term used several times in this article, yet so far as I can tell is not in common usage. It redirects to the article on the Russian SFSR, where the phrase "Russian Soviet Republic" never appears.
      • Changed to Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
        • Thanks
    • I don't think we should rely on a line in the intro to explain the date change; they should be specified by stating which states are old style. Likewise, the treatment of old style dates in the intro can be improved.
      • I added in-line clarifications.--Tomcat (7) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are there gaps from 1801 to 1810, and 1917 to 1923? Just because these gaps might be explained in the intro, there still needs to be in-line explanations about them. Don't expect the user to have to jump back and forth within the table.
    • Why include a political party column in the first table? This might make sense if it was actually linked to the other tables, but it's not, so the column goes entirely unused.
      • Because it will look too odd and small. I would keep it consistent. Secondly, the Russian Provisional Republic was a temporary republic which chronologically neither belongs to the Russian Empire, nor the Soviet Union
        • Except it's not consistent; none of the earlier tables have a Cabinet column. I would say remove unused columns, or combine everything into one table. There's no need to create a false consistency.
          • See below.
    • Inconsistent date styles, for example in the 'Cabinet' column for Silayev.
      • Overlooked that
        • Thanks
    • Why are some acting?
      • The answer would be the same as for all acting politicians. Acting politicians come to office after a tragic event, after resignation, etc. Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov was acting after the assassination of Stolypin
        • In the lists of U.S. governors I've made, I made sure to be very clear why a position changed hands, if not through normal electoral means. So if someone was acting, the list should inform us if it was because the previous person resigned, or died, or what not. This should not just be a simple list of the people who held the office; it must also educate the reader as to how they came to occupy it.
          • Added notes. Not sure why Kokovtsov became acting on 2 September 1911, probably ten assassination attempts of Stolypin by socialists was the reason to change the chairman. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about scope. The Russian Empire, Russian Federation, and Russian Republic were independent countries, as was the Russian SFSR for five years. But then it became part of a larger country, and thus its head of government was not analogous to the head of government of a country. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please clarify what you exactly mean. Especially the last sentence is not quite understandable. But I try to answer of what I understood. This article does not list secretaries of the Soviet Union, we have a separate article. The Russian SFSR with the future Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire, as is the Russian Federation of RSFSR.
        • I mean... the Russian SFSR was not an independent country. So its head of government had a much different definition than that of a country. Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR or the Russian Federation? My point is, you're jumping between independent nation and subunit. I know the Russian Federation was the successor state to the Soviet Union but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying, the offices are not analogous. One is the head of government of a country, one is the head of government a part of a country. No one would combine a governor and president into the same list with a U.S. state, even though they're both chief executives of their respective areas. However, I don't think this is quite a huge issue. After all, the only solution would be to split it out, which I might recommend, but there are enough other issues with the list that that can be tabled for now. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR" - probably yes; since Rykov the chairmen of USSR and RSFSR varied. Lenin, Rykov, Molotov, Stalin, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Tikhonov, Ryzhkov, Pavlov and Silayev. [2] lists heads of government of RSFSR as Russian heads of government.--Tomcat (7) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm withdrawing this objection. The offices are not purely analogous, but the only other option is to split out the list. And, this isn't a list of prime ministers of Russia, or or chief ministers... it's a list of the heads of government of Russia, which means it's less concerned about the actual office or title. I mean, heck, the office of Prime Minister of Russia probably has less in common with being a member of the Supreme Privy Council than the office of chairman of the RSFSR had to do with the head of government of the Soviet Union, yet they still belong on this list. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new one to add: There's a difference between "Independent" (like Zubkov) and "No parties" (like in the imperial era). All the more reason to remove party from the imperial era, and be specific what a dash means in the modern era, perhaps simply replacing it with "Independent". --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the column. I think the dash should stay, as it may confuse the reader.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying remove the dash, I'm saying replace it with either "Independent" or "No parties". --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, but I changed it anyway. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I miss something, or why has the review become staled? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, switching to support. Oh, one more thing - the left color bar by Chernomyrdin's acting term isn't the right color. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I changed the colour. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The list itself looks OK, although Kerensky's resignation date is wrong and there is no explanation for the additonal column 'Cabinet' for later governments, but the lead is badly written, and in parts I find it incomprehensible.

  • "Since its official commencement, around 57 people had governed the Russian government, one of the country's highest organs, which is composed of ministries, such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Culture." "had governed the Russian government" does not make sense and "one of the country's highest organs" is superfluous. Perhaps "Approximately 57 people have been head of the Russian government since its establishment in 1726. The government is composed of ministries such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture."
    • Fixed the date. Reworded the sentence
  • "The virtual chairman of government was a member of the Supreme Privy Council" What is a virtual chairman and what is the difference between the government and the Supreme Privy Council as according the table below they were the same.
    • Changed to factual
      • "The factual chairman of government" I still do not understand what a factual chairman is. Why not just "The chairman of government"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • It would be better to settle on one date format with an explanation in a note rather than showing both as e.g. 8 (20).
    • I don't agree, as it would be confusing, especially when using one style. Will resume later.--Tomcat (7) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created on 8 (19) February 1726 by Empress Catherine, but usual ministry duties were implemented into the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802 in accordance with the manifest of Emperor Alexander II." This is worded as if duties were 'implemented' in 1726 into a body which was not created until 1802. What do 'implemented into' and 'manifest' mean? Perhaps created 1726, but from 1802 ministerial duties were delegated to a Committee of Ministers.
    • They were introduced in 1802, but the office was created in 1726. In several sources the document is called "manifest". Changed implemented to introduced.
      • "but usual ministry duties were introduced in the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802" This still does not sound right. Suggest "and from 8 (20) September 1802 ministerial duties were allocated by the Committee of Ministers" Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • the word 'count' as part of title should be capitalised.
    • Done. It was changed by a copyeditor, so I thought it was correct.
  • "Eight years since the inauguration of the manifest" What does this mean? Eight years after?
    • Done.
  • Entity is an odd word in this context. Body would be better.
    • Done.
  • "The Council of Ministers consisted of chairmen of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers" What these bodies were and their relation to the government is not explained.
    • I did not include that as it would be off-topic. --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after insufficient number of files" I do not understand this.
    • Reworded, added English source.
      • "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after the number of files to the Council greatly decreased." I still do not understand. Why is the ending of one of the sessions worth mentioning in the lead? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source at the end of the sentence says "From 1863 the number of files received by the Council significantly reduced, it assembled more and more rarely, and after December 11 (23), 1882 its sessions stopped to take place." It means that the Council became stagnant, so another session was opened. I think it is important to mention the two sessions.--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the liquidation of the committee" Were they murdered? If not, abolition would be a better word.
    • Done.
  • "the two Minister-Chairmen became Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party" This is ungrammatical. Perhaps "Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party became joint Minister-Chairmen."
    • Done.
  • " Latter entity took the previous name "Council of Ministers" This is ungrammatical.
    • I changed to "The latter".
  • "and non-partisans and acting office holders followed next." What does this mean?
    • Reworded.
  • " Since 8 May 2012, Dmitry Medvedev governs the office." Governs the office does not sound right. Perhaps "Dmitry Medvedev has been the prime minister since 8 May 2012."

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but avoided the formulation prime minister--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now better but I still have a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns from the last FLC were addressed, with the exception of the optional one- well over half of the wikilinks are redirecting to alternate spellings or with/without the middle name. Remaining concern is that you don't list a publisher/work for your rusempire.ru cites. Additionally, if you insert "deadurl=no" into an archived citation, the main link changes to the live page, not the archived one. --PresN 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we do something with the two one-sentence paragraphs? Looks unprofessional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a hatnote and removed the definition of a government.--Tomcat (7) 19:18, 7 September 2014 (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_list_candidates/List_of_heads_of_government_of_Russia/archive2&oldid=625118842"