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:

First General 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]

Hey no rush but I also want to ensure this does not get too lost in the shuffle Czarking0 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I will return to the review tommorrow. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Feedback

The system of elected bodies of local self-government in the Russian Empire was represented at the lowest level by the mir and the volost and was continued, so far as the 34 Guberniyas (governorates) of old Russia were concerned, in the elective district and provincial assemblies (zemstvo). I would split this sentence into two or three, and began the main text with a short definition of the institution zemstvo. Without references to the time frame, the text could hardly be understood. A short introduction to mir, volost and old Russia (maximum three words) is needed. I would italicise all non-English terms (mir, volost, zemstvo, Guberniyas, etc...)

I addressed this maybe in an unexpected way. I moved some of this info into the history section and changed how this section starts. I did not italicize the blue text words. Ok? I sort of don't want to italicize zemstvo because it appears so many times in the text. However, if you insist I will do it at the end. Czarking0 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the zemstvo reform... What? Why, when and by whom was the administrative reform introduced?

I think now that this info is in the history section there is better context. Thoughts? You can Ctrl+F "goal" to find it. Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assemblies could appoint deputies... What assemblies?

Done Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander II instituted these bodies, one for each district and another for each province or government, in 1864. I understand you want to write this was a two-level system. What district, province and government mean in the context.

Done Czarking0 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the zemstvo was responsible for the tasks listed in the article at local level. This should be clarified.

I don't fully understand this comment. Are you saying there is ambiguity around the responsibilities of district vs provincial zemstvos? Czarking0 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self management of zemstvo property and revenue and Self maintenance of zemstvo property Why self-management and self-maintenance? What is the difference between the two tasks?

Technically the difference is that self-management powers allow the zemstvo to say order the construction of a new canal vs maintenance powers would only allow funds spent on existing canals. However, I am unsure how much value there is for the reader in belaboring these mostly legal points. I wanted to include the entirety of the "14 points" as they were historically notable.

Mutual property insurance For whom?

This is a very complicated question to answer. Unfortunately there is also not really one answer as the nature of the insurance changes over time and meant different things at the provincial vs district level. This actually becomes a point of contention in later years as the provincial zemstvos wanted to create what one might call a "zemstvo union of re-insurance" where the district zemstvos would offer insurance to their districts which would be re-insured by the provincial zemstvo. The provincial zemstvos would then make something like what we now call a credit union where if one provincial zemstvo had to pay out the reinsurance to its districts the other zemstvos would contribute funds to cover it. This idea was technically illegal under the zemstvo charter as provincial zemstvo members from one province were legally obligated to not coordinate with members from another province (the czar feared national politics). However, the scheme was a very popular (and economically sound) idea so more limited forms of this did occur. At the district level this really just meant fire insurance such that people would pay in and the zemstvo would help you rebuild if there was a fire. This is probably an area I could get into more sources. However, it was never really that successful so I did not highlight it as I thought the achievements in education and medcine (to a lesser extent) were more notable. I guess I could add a section on this?

Economic participation of public education, public health, and prison systems I do not understand. Do you mean funding?

It is more than just funding. I am using the translated wording of the law so that is why the phrasing is weird. In addition to taxation and budgeting to support these systems, it means choosing how many schools, how big to make them, how much to pay the teachers, where to put them, and so forth for the health and prison issues as well.

...bovine disease... One or more? A link?

I could look for more sources here but this is just what the law said. My sources do not discuss this point much. My current understanding is that it mostly boiled down to semi-mystical practices that told people when to kill their cows.

...state tax funds assigned to the zemstvo... By whom?

This changes over time and does not have one answer. Probably the most notable one is the Russian State Ministry of Education funding the zemstvos so they could build more schools. I can add that detail to the Education section?Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold elections What does it mean?

I feel like the Elections section following this answers that question ? Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special charters What does it mean? Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This basically just means the czar can give the zemstvo special orders whenever Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there is a summary here of this bulleted list is just a summary of the law it is not meant to be comprehensive information about the practice. Czarking0 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think without significant changes the article cannot meet GA criteria. First of all, I suggest that you should seek assistance at the Guild of Copy Editors. I also suggest that you should put yourself into our readers' shoes: they have no information about the institution and late-19th-century Russia. Without a deeper introduction, they will not understand the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka. I appreciate you taking some time to review this. Although I think your final review decision is justifiable, I think your GAR here is an example of a poorly done review. First, I assume we agree that a quick fail is not applicable here. I ask that you reflect on my comments here and take them into future GAR.

Let me point out some places from the GAR instructions that I believe you failed to follow.

"An in-depth review must be provided in all other cases (non quick fail). This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source." I think you did not do this.
"provide a review on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet and state what is needed to bring the article up to standard." Stating "I think without significant changes the article cannot meet GA criteria" does not satisfy this. In regards to your other comments, I had clearly begun responding to them and you did not care to respond back to me.
"Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days." You were clearly not a response reviewer and I was clearly a responsive nominator. The next section of the GAR instructions suggests a hold in case of a responsive reviewer that is willing to amend the article. This clearly applies here since I was amending the article to address your suggestions.

That is the high-level issues with your review. I have more problems with it that I can elaborate on if you care to hear. Czarking0 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please read my first remarks above: for the first glance, it was clear for me that this is a quick fail but I thought it could be improved during the GAR. You should put yourself into our readers' shoes when editing: readers who do not have information about 19th-century Russian history have no chance to understand the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your response as you and I now both agree that this article could have been improved during the review and further agree that it was not QF worthy. If you had done QF maybe we would have had a different discussion but you did not; therefore, I expect you to provide a full review and not respond to me by saying you thought about QF. If the review you provided is your good-faith full review, then I ask that you refrain from reviewing any of my articles in the future as I do not appreciate working with you. On the other hand, if you think I have made a fair criticism and that your review was flawed I am open to working together in the future. Czarking0 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do not fully understand WP. You should concentrate on the issues I raised above to improve the article. I am not planning to select for review articles that you will nominate in the future. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]