Talk:Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting subject matter. I'll take on the review, if there are no objections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

We need a much better PD tag for File:Lakoba Nestor.jpg than the one provided. We need to know exactly why the image is PD in both Russia and the US. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

It still needs a tag explaining why it is PD in the United States. Also, there has to be a sentence or so explicitly explaining why it is PD in the Russian Federation I appreciate that this is annoying but it is necessary. I'm not an expert on these things, but I did ensure that all of the images on the Vladimir Lenin article were fully sourced so you might want to take a look at some of those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think this is fixed now.

File:Soviet caucasus1922.png is a nice image, but it really needs to be larger to enable the reader to appreciate it, particularly as the text in it is illegible at the current size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more cropped image of just Georgia, and increased the size of the image a bit, as well as modified the caption to make it clearer. Hopefully that helps make it clearer.

Prose:

In "Background:"

"Abkhazia had been annexed into the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century, with authority consolidated by 1864". This could read more smoothly in order to avoid passive voice. How about "The Russian Empire annexed Abkhazia in the early nineteenth century and had consolidated its authority over the region by 1864." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed

"After the Russian Revolution, the status of Abkhazia is contested and unclear" - give the year of the revolution. Also, "is", or "was"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and definitely was.

Do you think it might be improved if we added a brief few words about what the Russian Revolution was? For instance "After the 1917 Russian Revolution—in which Tsar Nicholas II abdicated and was replaced first by a Provisional Government and then by a Bolshevik-led regime—the status of Abkhazia was contested and unclear." This makes things a little clearer for those interested in Abkhazia but whom have little or no knowledge of Russian history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a brief note about that.

"Free from Russian rule in 1917 it briefly joined the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, though this union did not last, and a so-called "Abkhaz People's Council" (APC) effectively controlled the region before it was nominally annexed by the Democratic Republic of Georgia when the latter was formed in May 1918, though Georgia never fully maintained control of the region, leaving the APC to rule it until the Bolshevik invasion of 1921". This is a very lengthy sentence and I think it woul dbe best to carve it up into smaller sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and corrected what it said.

"Free from Russian rule in 1917 it briefly" needs a comma; probably best to put it after "rule". Also, "was formed and effectively controlled" would work better as "was formed which effectively controlled". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this.

"As part of Georgia, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," as it was written in Article 105 of the constitution, was promised autonomy for "the administration of their affairs;"[5] as the constitution was proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921, it was an empty promise and what the autonomy would entail was never determined". Again, pretty lengthy. Worth cutting in two. I think that he first part could also run more smoothly if restructured. How about something like "Article 105 of the new Georgian constitution defined the area as "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," and promised it autonomy for "the administration of their affairs"." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded

I still think that there are problems with "Article 105 of the Georgian constitution guaranteed, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," autonomy for "the administration of their affairs."" In particular, there are issues with "guaranteed, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," autonomy", which does not read very smoothly. I think that my proposed wording works a lot more smoothly. Or perhaps "Article 105 of the Georgian constitution guaranteed "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)"—as it was officially called—autonomy for "the administration of their affairs.""? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded again

"The constitution's one major achievement, however" - perhaps this is a little subjective. If it is Baluvelt making this claim, then maybe make that clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified

"Scholar Timothy Blauvelt, however, contends" - I would get rid of the "however" and also it would be best if we specify what academic discipline Blauvelt works in (i.e. say "Historian Timothy..." or "Political scientist Timothy..." etc.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified Blauvelt's title.

"However the constitution was only proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921, and so it was an empty promise and what that autonomy would entail was never determined". This could do with some tweaking, particularly in the latter third where it gets a bit clunky. How about "However, the constitution was only proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921; the nature of the promised autonomy was never determined". Calling something an "empty promise" in Wikipedia's own words might raise some POV issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this.

In "Formation":

"The Red Army invaded Georgia beginning" - "invaded... beginning" doesn't really work. Also, we need to make clear who the Red Army are. Assume the reader knows nothing about the history of this region at all. Perhaps "The Soviet Union's Red Army launched its invasion of neighbouring Georgia on 15 February, 1921." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the "beginning." However in regard to the qualifier for the Red Army, I have to note that it technically was just the "Red Army" at the time, as the USSR wouldn't be formed for nearly 2 more years. I agree it does make things confusing for those unfamiliar, but it is the proper name for the army without being anachronistic and wrong.

The Soviet Union did not yet exist, but the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic did, so using "Soviet" would not necessarily be incorrect here. Perhaps "The Russian Red Army"? Again, I think we need to be cautious and not assume that the reader already knows too much about this period of time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put the qualifier "Bolshevik-led" in front, as I think that may be the most accurate description for the Red Army.

The section is flitting back and forth between American and British conventions for dates. Standardise (presumably to the British variant, as we are talking about the Old World?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got the last one. Missed it in my first go over to convert to British.

"the Revkom took" - who are they? We need to have a brief introduction at the very least. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled out their name, should be clearer now.

There is now the situation where "Revkom" is mentioned in the first paragraph of this second, and then given its full name in the second. This needs to be switched. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

This section is very short. Is there not material in the Reliable Sources where we can flesh it out a bit more? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Will take a look, get back to you on that.~~

I did what I can, but there is really quite little to add in the formation aspect. I did combine the two paragraphs to make it look a little better, but am afraid that's about it.

~~Lakoba is not mentioned in this section, so why is the picture of him located here? It would probably sit more smoothly further down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Moved down.

~~"would have to join" to "would join"; cut the "However". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

In Status:

"reinforced in 1922 Georgian constitution" - a "the" is needed before "1922". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"While united with Georgia Abkhazia joined" - add a comma after "Georgia". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"done to consolidate control over the region". - to consolidate Soviet control? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixed.

"created 1 April 1925, another right" - "created on 1 April" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

In Politics:

"Though he never took up a top position, Lakoba dominated the political rule Abkhazia as a personal fiefdom" - this needs some tweaking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded

In Economy:

"considerably better than " - "better off than", surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

" Stalin visited annually" - Who is Stalin? I jest of course, but there may be readers unfamiliar with him. We need to be clearer on this: "The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin..." would be best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linked his name and added title.

"Only after Abkhazia was downgraded and Lakoba's death in 1936 that collectivization was implemented" - the structure of this sentence does not work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Perhaps "It was only after the death of Lakoba in 1936 and Abkhazia's downgrading that collectivization was implemented"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to be more accurate

"a confident of his" should be "a confidant of his". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

~~When first mentioning "collectivization", include a link to Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oops, forget that, I see that the link is already used further up the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we mention the Kremlin, add a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

In Culture:

"(14,045, or 7%, and Russians (6.2%).[" there needs to be a ")" after "7%" and why do we not specify the actual number of ethnic Russians, as we do for the other groups? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

In Legacy:

There's a big gap before the "Legacy" section which needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this

There was an actual physical gap between two sections (i.e. an area of blank space) but the problem has now been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When Abkhazia declared independence in 1990, they used " - "it" rather than "they" if we are referring to Abkhazia as a nation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" pretext for the 1992–1993 war, and the ensuing conflict" - I think that this could be fleshed out a little bit more, just to give a very brief overview of the war, who it involved etc. At present, the wording appears to assume prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography:

It would be good to have ISBN numbers when dealing with books, and DOI numbers when using journal articles. Not a prerequisite for GAN but a good addition to make nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When including a chapter in an edited volume, it is best to include the page numbers of said chapter in the Bibliography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Should be able to get the DOI for the articles, but ISBN may be an issue just due to my living situation right now (I'm about 10,000km from most of the books for the forseeable future). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything done here. A couple of the Russian-language books don't have ISBN's as far as I can tell. That may be a result of them being published in Abkhazia though. The Soviet encyclopedia articles as well, but that shouldn't be an issue. Everything else is covered.

More soon.

Thanks for reviewing. Should be able to go through all this in the next couple days, will let you know when I finish. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kaiser; if you could, leave me a message under each point if you disagree, or strike out my sentence if you have dealt with it. That way I can be aware of what has been dealt with and what has not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright went through and got everything except the note on expansion, which I'll take a look through what I have. Should have that done shortly though. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some time away from a computer, I should be back and able to take care of most of this in the next day or so. Just noting this so you don't think I just abandoned everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Got through most of the issues. Couple more to deal with. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have now addressed everything here, and am ready for you to take another look. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

Why only one paragraph? With an article such as this, we can definitely warrant at least two paragraphs, perhaps three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded it to cover everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the lede is to summarise the content of the article. At present, the lede does not even mention the topics covered in such sections as "Politics", "Economy", and "Culture". Ensure that there is at least one sentence in the lede that summarises each of these sections; more if necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the lede, Kaiser matias. Just a few extra points that I think would help smooth the prose in places:
- "was a short-lived Soviet republic" - this is the first mention of "Soviet" but it not linked; it is only later that a link to Soviet Union appears. I think that the link should go at the first mention, or perhaps a link to Republics of the Soviet Union instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Georgian SSR." - Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic? (At least on the first mention). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Throughout its entire existence" - I'd scrap the "entire". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "major producer of tobacco" - "major tobacco producer"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- " for the Soviet Union, supplying over half of the USSR's supply" - the use of both "Soviet Union" and "USSR" may be confusing for some readers not familiar with the acronym. How about "over half of the country's supply"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Abkhazia was quite diverse ethnically" - "Abkhazia was ethnically diverse"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got all those done. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing, Kaiser matias - there's a few small points in the "Legacy" section that have not been addressed, but once that is completed then I will be very happy to pass this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow missed those comments. Addressed them now. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: well done on all the hard work that went into this! It's an important contribution, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should be thanking you here, not the other way. You provided some really valuable criticism, and helped to make this a decent article. Without that it would not have gotten that far, though I am quite glad its finished now. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]