Wikipedia:Peer review/Great grain robbery/archive1

Great grain robbery[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to help get it to GA, but it isn't quite there yet and help from an experienced editor would be appreciated. Thanks, Flalf (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flalf, Thanks for working on this article. This is the first time I have read about the Great Grain Robbery. I read the whole article, but I have only scrutinized the Background section. This is an area for potential improvement. It starts by attributing the problem with Soviet agriculture to a pair of causes: the Soviet management of agriculture and climate. A few sentences later, the article acknowledges that only a small part of the Soviet Union produced food: the Black Earth Belt. But the article treats this as a secondary cause. I understand that you are writing according to what the sources say, but I am wondering if there are some better sources to consider. I searched JSTOR using "Soviet Agriculture" as the target, and there were several promising titles. If you have JSTOR access, it would be very helpful. If you don't, please contact me on my talk page for suggestions. I think it makes more sense to think of the lack of arable land in the Soviet Union as a primary factor in its vulnerability to famine.

Second, there is the question of the Holodomor. This is sourced by the Anne Applebaum article, which claims that four of the five million people who died in the famine were in Ukraine. The irony here is that food was plentiful in Ukraine. According to that article, the Ukrainians were food producers, but starved because the Soviets expropriated all of their food. Yet this contradicts the claim in the Wikipedia article that all Soviet agriculture was in the Black Earth Belt. Therefore, the article should say that both Ukraine (or some portion of Ukraine) produced food for the Soviet Union in addition to the Black Earth Belt. Again, I suggest looking for better sources. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next three replies are reposts from my talk page and should be included within the peer review: Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: Thank you for bringing the part on the black earth belt to my attention, it seems part of the problem was the link to Central Black Earth Region which was incorrect. For some reason it only refers to the regions in Russia, not in the former USSR. Both here and here indicate a large region spanning from ukraine to parts of siberia. This image here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chernozem_distribution.JPG on Chernozem. That was a problem on my part. Flalf^Talk 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf: I added the link, so if it's misleading, that's my fault. I think part of the issue is reconciling Soviet terminology with post-Soviet terminology. Ukraine is no longer a part of the agricultural policy coming out of Moscow, but it was during the Soviet era. Whoever wrote the article on the Central Black Earth Region made it into an article pertaining to Russia rather than as a transnational area. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: I assumed that the central black earth area is a modern region, central as in only the Russian part? Maybe a I assumed incorrectly. This could be a good time to make a new article. Flalf^Talk 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: Any other constructive criticisms? Flalf^Talk 18:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have three more points:

This needs to be rephrased: "The American side was negotiated for by multiple businessmen, including Michel Fribourg the CEO of ContiGroup Companies. Government officials were also present, such as Carroll Brunthaver, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services." My suggestion is to try active voice, such as "Multiple businessmen negotiated on behalf of the Americans, including Michel Fribourg, the CEO of ContiGroup Companies...."
To state the obvious, you need to address the sentence tagged as "citation needed."
You can help out reviewers by splitting you references into two sections. The section with your "reflist" template can use short citations: <ref>Doe (2020), p. 20.</ref>, and the second section is a list of full citations for each reference requiring a page number. One example of this is Samuel May Williams#References and Samuel May Williams#Bibliography. I have seen another way to name these sections: Citations and References, which is the convention I will use going forward. Please see Eugene C. Barker#Citations and Eugene C. Barker#References. MOS:NOTES has suggestions for other naming conventions. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: I'll address the first point later, I removed the second point entirely as it appeared to be original research, on the final point I am confused. Are you talking about the further reading? Those aren't references. Wikipedia:Further reading and although I didn't add the further reading it looks fine to me. Flalf^Talk 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: just looked at it on wikitext and yeah nevermind that's weird. Flalf^Talk 18:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf: It's not wierd at all. It's normal for scholarly materials to publish a list of references in long form and create short citations in the footnotes or endnotes. Short citations are easier on the eyes, which is important when someone is reviewing sources, especially in articles with a long citation list. Take a look at recently promoted GAs and FAs if you still think it's weird. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: Sorry if I phrased that poorly, what I meant to say was that the wikitext in the article Great grain robbery was not standard. I was agreeing with your statement. Flalf^Talk 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry for being so irascible. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Good! Flalf^Talk 18:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Coming soon Kees08 (Talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is formatted weird: Office, U. S. Government Accountability
Who published "Geography Droughts and Food Problems in Russia (1900-2000)"? Make sure all references have some sort of publisher/website parameter so reviewers can easily validate RS's
This looks like a class lesson; are there any better sources for the information? "Black Earth". novaonline.nvcc.edu.
Is www.voyagesphotosmanu.com a reliable source?
Looks like the website is actually European Drought Centre for www.geo.uio.no. Sometimes the end of a URL is included in the citation, but only if it is part of the website name, like for Spaceflight101.com. Check any other references you have the URL listed for the website and see if the website has a different name.
Looks formatted wrong (maybe by an automatic citation generator? something to look out for) Reckoning, The Daily.
This has a page number: Albright, Joseph (November 25, 1973). "The full story of how Amepиka got burned and the Russians got bread". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 30, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2020.
The Harvard Crimson should be taken out of the title and moved into the website parameter, per my earlier comment: "America Gets the Shaft | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com.
The Harvard Crimson is a student-run newspaper right? Are there more reliable sources available to source the same information?
Page numbers for all NYT references
Looks like the Earthzine references can be combined. I don't know of an easy way to look for duplicate references that can be combined, but go through and see if there are any others.
Formatted differently than the one next to it: Spectrum.IEEE.org.
Real nit picky, but even though the source uses a hyphen, it is supposed to be an en dash and we are allowed to make those types of changes. So replace with an en dash and do the same for any others that need it: "USDA ERS - Agricultural Commodity Price Spikes in the 1970s and 1990s: Valuable Lessons for Today"
Is a free or paid account required to view this citation? If so you should add a parameter to the citation template to note that. Check if any other citations require free or paid account registration. Destler, I. M. (1978). "United States food policy 1972–1976: reconciling domestic and international objectives". International Organization. 32 (3): 617–653. doi:10.1017/S002081830003188X. ISSN 1531-5088.

Overall, looking very good for a neat topic. Good work so far; let me know if you need any clarifications on the above and when you are done. Kees08 (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've started looking and fixing your suggestions! I've used a checkmark system about whether I have completed a task. Flalf^Talk 07:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y It thought the US Government of Accountability was a journal author, I fixed it
Y Added publisher for "Geography Droughts and Food Problems in Russia (1900-2000)"
Y https://www.mn.uio.no/geo/ appears to be the only one as it is linked to on the Norwegian version: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutt_for_geofag_(UiO) and it is the first result for Institutt for geofag (UiO) appears to be that link.
Y https://www.voyagesphotosmanu.com was replaced with a world atlas link [1]
Y Thanks for helping me get NYT page numbers :)
The NYT usually have the page number at the top or bottom, in that articles case it was See the article in its original context from November 25, 1973, Page 36 Kees08 (Talk) 18:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Spectrum was the same thing but from two different redirects, I stuck with the one that was with the actual website
Y I think I fixed the Harvard Crimson part, also I'll look to see if it's replaceable.
Y I made all of the -'s into –'s
N @Kees08: Destler, I. M. (1978). "United States food policy 1972–1976: reconciling domestic and international objectives". International Organization. 32 (3): 617–653. doi:10.1017/S002081830003188X. ISSN 1531-5088. is cited as a journal, is there even a paid parameter for those? Flalf^Talk 04:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I apologize I'm not very good at sources. Flalf^Talk 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf: Let me know if you have any more questions related to the above, thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 17:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Besides NYT page numbers I don't have any just struggling with IRL virus-related stuff. Flalf^Talk 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, we have all the time in the world. Hope all is going well in the real world for you in regards to the ongoing pandemic. I posted above about NYT page numbers, whenever you get to it (no rush at all!) if you have additional questions let me know. If you work on any of the other points above and have questions, feel free to let me know as well. Do not feel obligated to respond to this :). Kees08 (Talk) 19:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kees! Flalf^Talk 16:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from the other side of the curtain. I was five when it happened, but a few years later, in late 1970s, it was classroom stuff - not the American subsidies, but the fact that the Soviet Union depended on foreign food imports. First it was like, "we gotta pump out that unused Siberian oil to pay for bread"; then, once the great pipelines were operational, it was like "we gotta grow something ourselves"... every day over the TV. So it's kinda odd to read of "discounting reports of Soviet crop failure" when Soviet media screamed of the same failures.

Background awkwardly mixes up political/organizational flaws and objective, climate-related stuff. "Cold climate, and frequent droughts" don't belong to "Such policies... ". May I also point that it wasn't as much drought as irregularity of drought/inundation excesses.

@Retired electrician: Changed "such policies" to "soviet policies" and for the droughts I rewrote the sentence to: "Due to the Soviet agricultural system, the cold climate, and irregularly frequent droughts..." if that's still too awkward please let me know! Thanks for contributing to this review! Flalf^Talk 03:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"small fraction of the Soviet Union was able to be farmed" - Clarification 1: farmed profitably and reliably, year after year. Anything else can be farmed too, but inefficiently. Clarification 2: The whole statement is not about farming in general, but about large-scale grain crops. The most fertile land was not in black earth belt, but in Central Asia, and it wasn't growing much grain; the Potato Paradise was not in black earth but in Belarus, etc. Retired electrician (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired electrician: You're right I was mistaken as I wrote it poorly, so I have rewritten it to: "only a small fraction of the Soviet Union was able to be farmed, the majority of which was contained in an area known as the black earth belt." I had not meant to say that all of it was in the belt. Also to be fair the Fergana Valley is a strange exception and I'm not quite sure of the extent of Soviet agricultural policies affected the area- maybe something to look into now. Thanks. Flalf^Talk 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fergana Valley was half-ruined with those policies - with almost all land committed to cotton. Monoculture was never a good thing, especially when managed by local party bosses and toiled with child labor. Retired electrician (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, so a piece on that wouldn't be very useful to an article on grain. Thanks. Flalf^Talk 12:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "unaware that the Soviets had suffered massive shortfalls..." bit needs further research and clarification. Since the Soviets announced their demand, the depth of the problem was no secret, was it not? Retired electrician (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired electrician: I must have clarified it poorly but many people in the United States were under the impression they were buying it as animal feed. "still unaware that the Soviets had suffered massive shortfalls in crops in 1971 and 1972. American negotiators didn't realize the full scope of the problem. Part of the reason for the American ignorance of the Russian situation is that many officials, such as Earl Butz, were convinced that the Soviets were only purchasing the grain to feed their animals" I think it would be better to rephrase it if it could be taken the wrong way. Sorry! Flalf^Talk 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Lee Vilenski

Two things from me - could you expand the lede slightly? It's a little small.
"In a ten-month span in 1973, global food prices rose by at least 30 percent.[9][19][20][21][22]" is a WP:REFBOMB. Pick the best two and remove the others.Maybe a little more on contemporary media at the time of the disaster - otherwise good to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the duplicate reference which would do better elsewhere but I couldn't choose because the numbers are honestly a bit of a range, numbers from mid crisis claim about 16% where ones after claim from 30-50%. I rewrote the area but it still has four sources.

Comments from Eddie891

Y"prevent famine or crisis" some would consider a famine to be a crisis, so perhaps try "prevent famine or another crisis"
Y"was able to be farmed" try "was farmable" or better yet "was arable"
Y"similar temperature to the heat experienced during" try "with temperatures comparable" or "with similar temperatures to the" or something a little shorter
Y"between two Russian teams, one led by foreign trade minister Nikolai Patolichev and the second led by Nicolai Belousov" makes it sound like the Russians were negotiating with themselves?
Y Could link credit somewhere; while a pretty well known term, it's useful to have topics that are important to the article (major theme) linked?
Y "causing an economic crisis" any more detail on this? Was the credit negotiation during or before the grain deal?
YFirst paragraph of 'Event' could really use a date for the reader to anchor on.
Y "The Soviets are thought to have spent up to US$1 billion " during what time frame?

$750 million of it in a month- gives a general idea. Flalf^Talk 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y "shortfalls in crops" -> "crop shortfalls"
Y "Part of the reason for the American ignorance of the Russian situation" -> "American ignorance of the Russian situation was in part due to" or something like that
Y "inadvertently rose food prices" -> "inadvertently led to food prices rising" or better "inadvertently caused food prices rising" or perhaps best "inadvertently contributed to food prices rising" or something like that?
Y "Weeks after the grain deal was announced, the Earth-observing satellite Landsat 1 achieved orbit. If the satellite had launched a few months earlier, the deal may have been reconsidered or never have happened at all, because American negotiators could have realized the scale of crop failures. The event helped lead the U.S. government to seek more information about global agricultural output via infrared satellite intelligence. After the deal, many Americans were concerned about businesses having advantages in similar situations due to their early access to information." seems like this is more about global effects and legacy?

I'd agree but I'm renaming global effects and legacy to 'aftermath and international consequences' so that I think it could fit better.Flalf^Talk 00:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In a ten-month span in 1973," what months?
Y "According to one Londoner" could rephrase somehow?
Y "wheat ending stocks" what is a 'wheat ending stock'?

Removed Flalf^Talk 04:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y "Great Grain Robbery" inconsistent capitalization
Y "Hamilton introduced the term as the title of Chapter VII" what year?

this was a big error on my part, after researching the book it turns out it is copyrighted in 1972- a year before the robbery started, also I believe it was a political book advocating something or other related to grain trade. It was added by another user and I had failed to look at it. Flalf^Talk 00:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 10 million tons mentioned in the body at all?
unclear in the article whether global grain prices or global food prices rose.

I think it was both and it is specified where it mentions statistics. Flalf^Talk 00:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC) That's it for a first pass. Very nice, interesting article Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]