I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This article has been an astonishing amount of work, btw, it had to be completely rewritten. It is still in the course of an A class review at MilHist, but as comments had ceased I felt it was ready to go here. That got rid of a lot of image issues! I think you'll find it a good read of a guy often remembered for the wrong things (shoe banging).Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - having read this for about the third time (once per request, another during the milhist ACR, and a final time just now), I am convinced that it is ready for the star. Great job Wehwalt. —Ed(talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a free version of ref 30, the NYTimes article, as an On This Day feature! Verify, if you wish, that it matches the pay version you used. --anoddname 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same; it is used as an EL. I will note in the ref that it is "available free at" but think it best to keep the link to the pay version as well, there are pictures in that version.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I pretty much glanced the References and not the ELs...*headdesk* --anoddname 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I modified ref 30 anyway so readers can view the article. No great harm in giving readers two routes to his free obit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that aside, there's no dab links (no easy task in a big article like this). An external link comes up "404" in the link checker, and even has "Page not found" in the window title, but works for me otherwise. A few images lack alt text—I assume those were intentional omissions—and the rest have alt text with no obvious problems. --anoddname 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the dead link. Oddly, that was just added to the article by someone else. I need to look at the alts, I had to add several images because several were found to have copyright problems. I have to go out now but will report back in the morning, either with alt text added or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a dead link (it does have text of a Khrushchev speech), it just appears as such to the link checker and to the site's own database (per the page's own window title). --anoddname 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is complete now. I didn't bring back the EL, because given Khrushchev's prominence and the number of EL's we already have, a link to the text of what seems a fairly random speech isn't needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline 1c (still) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC), 2cFifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC). See reasons below. SameSome of the same reasons for Decline at Military History assessment.[reply]
Comment: 2c checked and fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer, please note that extensive debate exists below in relation to my decline for 1c reasons Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reasons not addressed at Military history assessment
NIB (Not in bibliography): ^ Schwartz, Harry (1971-09-12), "We know now that he was a giant among men", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ Shabad, Theodore (1970-11-24), "Izvestia likens 'memoirs' to forgeries", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ "Vast Riddle", The New York Times, 1953-03-10, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ a b c Birch, Douglas (2008-08-02), "Khrushchev kin allege family honor slurred", USAToday, retrieved 2009-08-14
(These four may be a style debate, but I hold fairly strongly to the disciplinary expectation from History for full bibliographies).
Otherwise 2c is acceptable, consistent.
1c: Sourcing shows a US source bias.
1c: Where are the scholarly journal articles?
1c: Where are the scholarly edited collections?
WP:MILMOS#SOURCES not met. Wouldn't meet Featured Article 1c as it lacks a full survey of the highest quality sources available (no scholarly journal article search conducted).
New Criticism related to Decline not from Military assessment Expansion of 1c concerns
FUTON via Scholar: Lenoe, Matthew, "Khrushchev Era Politics and the Investigation of the Kirov Murder", 1956-1957, Acta Slavica Iaponica 24 2007: 47-74.
FUTON via Scholar: P Jones "Iurii...ISBN5733103299." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 8, 3 (Summer 2007): 695–704.. Review article of Thaw Scholarship. (Note, not a book review, this is a RS Journal article).
FUTON via Scholar: John Rettie "How Khrushchev Leaked his Secret Speech to the World" History Workshop Journal 2006 62(1):187-193; doi:10.1093/hwj/dbl018
FUTON via Scholar: Another Review Article: David Wedgwood Benn "Review: On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review Article" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Jun., 2004), pp. 615-621
FUTON via Scholar: Mie Nakachi, "N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet Family Law: Politics, Reproduction, and Language" East European Politics & Societies, Vol. 20, No. 1, 40-68 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0888325405284313
Citation from Scholar: @article{loewenstein2006re, title={Re-emergence of public opinion in the Soviet Union: Khrushchev and responses to the secret speech}, author={LOEWENSTEIN, K.E.}, journal={Europe-Asia Studies}, volume={58}, number={8}, pages={1329--1345}, year={2006}, publisher={Routledge}}
FUTON via Scholar: V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79
FUTON via Scholar: Paul Du Quenoy "The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964" The International History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 334-356
I am seriously not convinced of 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I think some journal articles as you have cited would be very helpful for the article, and I'll see if I can find some access to some of them. I note that 1c says "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I think some of those articles could well be useful for points like the Secret Speecch and Khrushchev's overthrow, some of them look too specialized to be helpful in a survey which necessarily has to keep to the high points and is long even so (but not long when compared to articles on US Presidents at FA, and Khrushchev led his country for longer than any US pres except FDR. Certainly most of the biographical details and much of the description of what he did do not need to be sourced to scholarly journals. As for US bias, while the newspapers are all US, they are used for only a small part of the article. Taubman was American, I'm still searching for Tompson's, but the other authors are non-American.
The bibilography, I'll change that this weekend.
Anyhoo, I'll see about trying to get ahold of some of these journals. I'd appreciate the URL of the page where you ran that search, I had no luck with the search through Wilson that you proposed at MilHist.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised concerns about the applicability of this oppose at WT:FAC and will be guided by the ensuing discussion there, if any. While I want the best possible article, I don't want to throw in a couple of scholarly articles only to be told that that's not enough, or only for the sake of doing it. Therefore, I've requested some community input so we are all on the same page as to the standard to be applied regarding 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images now have alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting back to Fifelfoo's concern re sourcing, based on the discussions on the changes to 1c, the non-adopted proposals to enact a 1f and the discussion at WT:FAC, I am inclined to think that unless there is a showing that there is something missing or seriously wrong with the article, I do not believe that Fifelfoo's sourcing objection is completely applicable. It was plainly not the intent of those who voted for the present form of 1c to require the "highest" (even if scholarly articles are, and I would question that) sourcing, but merely insist on a high level of sourcing, which the sources in this article meet easily. Taubman won the Pulitzer Prize for his bio of Khrushchev, for example. No trivial or kid's works are used in this article. This is a bio of a figure in history about whom there is a large amount written. It is written in summary style, meaning that we don't get into intricacies. Scholarly articles generally do not replow the cornfields; they look for the intricacies. Here, the article is extensively, and I mean extensively sourced to well regarded books on Khrushchev and his era. The bibliographies for those books list many scholarly articles and collections. There may be articles which require the use of such scholarly articles. This is not one of them. It is comprehensive, verifiable, and uses solid works on the subject, most of recent publication (2009, 2008, 2006, 2003, 2001, 1996, plus Khrushchev's annotated memoirs published 2002-05 and used very cautiously). I will address Fifelfoo's 2c concern, that is placing all news articles used into the biblio, this weekend, as I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citations above are complete academic citations in a common historical style. Some have DOIs. 1c is "1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." Review articles, and recent specialist scholarship on aspects of biography or major political contributions (such as family law) should be addressed to be a "thorough and representative survey". V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79 is, in particular, a biographical article. For the article to meet 1c, it needs to account for the scholarship in journals. It doesn't not need to exhaustively reference every journal article; but I would be very surprised if Zhuravlev wasn't relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I do not believe the article needs to discuss a family law passed ten years before Khrushchev attained power. Summary style is the name of the game here; this is a long article and I see little likelihood such a journal article will have anything which is worth adding to this article. To a certain extent, I feel as if the goalposts are on wheels here. I have no objection to obtaining, if reasonably possible, a small number of specific articles if it will satisfy your 1c concerns, or else explaining why I think they are not needed for the article as I did with the family law one. I should add that I have ordered a scholarly collection of articles edited by Taubman in 2000, though I don't know if it will come and be absorbed and inserted into the article during the course of the FAC, and the fact that they are from 2000 means that they were certainly used for Taubman's subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Khrushchev. But if you are going to require obtaining large numbers of articles "on spec", well, in that case, I will stand on the fact that no other FA reviewer has agreed with your objection, most have repudiated it, and I'll leave it to the good graces of the FA delegate. The fact that you think 1c should be interpreted in the way you do is interesting but does not govern. I am aware you have a 2c objection, but I will move the articles into the biblio. I should note that you have not yet addressed my similar question at WT:FAC. where I asked you if the article was cited in books which are cited, whether you felt that was sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have adequately expressed myself at length in relation to this FAC's process, and will review it periodically in relation to my reasons for declining. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, as I have indicated that I don't fully understand your reasoning or what you would like to see. Since you decline my request for clarification, I consider your oppose unactionable for that reason as well as the fact that multiple reviewers disagree and multiple commentors at WT:FAC state that your view of 1c is not valid. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history, in relation to 1c a thorough literature survey has not been conducted, in particular you have not used general or specific relevant journal articles, a key form of historical literature, please correct this. There is no time limit. If you don't have access to material, seek editors who do to collaborate with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you avoid the personal invective. No one who brings a seriously considered FA candidate here has "literacy problems". Please note WP:NPA ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") If you wish to state your requirements with specificity, I'm available to listen. Otherwise, I am content with the judgment of the FAC community, which has come down against you and is fully aware of whether I have "literacy problems", as it has passed 13 FA's in which I was a major contributor before the FAC. Including a number in the field of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me quote, yet again, "1 It is - (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." You are resistant to acquiring and using the variety of literature in edited collections and journals. The article is not thorough, and is not representative, as it fails to take account of two major publishing modes of academic history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to Milmos for a sec, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." Which this is. However, recent books, or monographs, as you put it, by respected historians which rely on the field of published works, are superior for encyclopedia purposes because of the fact that they are in a better position to judge weight than we. The article contains up to date sources by respected scholars (Carlson, the most recent book, is not a scholar on Soviet matters, but his book generally covers Khrushchev's two US visits and is used for that purpose). I'm going to leave it at this, because long pieces turn off reviewers, and we can continue this at WT:FAC if you want, but you are for sure prizing form over substance. That being said, I admire your having the courage of your convictions, though I don't agree with you and don't think your opinion should override that of the FAC community. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this article and WEIGHTing in relation to 1c, you've neglected the Review Article mode of publication in journals which is the premier manner in which academic historians evaluate secondary source weighting. WT:FAC would be the more general issues, which can probably proceed there. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not academic historians, and a Wikipedia article is not a master's thesis. I appreciate the effort to upgrade WP's standards, but doing it by unilateral opposes based on what you think our standards should be is not the way to go. WP works by consensus, and while there are times that one person has to drag consensus with him, this isn't one of those times! Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons stated here by many editors, it is clear that Fifelfoo's concerns do not reflect a consensus view of WP:WIAFA, since his comments there have not attracted support, whereas the opposite views have. Accordingly, I consider them unactionable for purposes of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 1c concerns - the article relies on seven academically published works across four academic publishers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 1c per Ottava and discussion here. I'll try to conduct a thorough review of some other criteria later. Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning to support (support now unconditional, see below): First, I entirely agree with the above declarations that 1(c) is satisfied in this article. The "decliner" would need show specific instances of material omitted or inadequately covered, to justify an insistence on further sources. This is my first reading of the article (I missed the peer review); it is rather long so it may take me a few days to complete my comments. In general the article looks meaty and impressive - my comments on the first quarter are below. They are mostly nitpicks, an art at which I excel. To help differentiate I have put my slightly more substantial concerns into italics.
Early years
I can't sort out who is who here: "According to Khrushchev in his memoirs, Shevchenko was a freethinker who upset the villagers by not attending church, and when her brother visited, he gave him books which had been banned by the Imperial Government." Exactly who gave books, to whom?
Just a thought: "Employed by a workshop which serviced ten mines..." This is "ten", not "tin", is it?
"With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, the government in St. Petersburg..." Presumably this means the Menshevik government, should say so.
The last sentence of the fifth paragraph (re his appointment as a commissar) really belongs to the following paragraph.
We need more information in the text to indicate when WWI ended (so far as the Russians were concerned) when the civil was began and who the combatants were in that civil war. OK, anyone reasonably well-read in 20thC history will know these things, but assumptions shouldn't be made about foreknowledge.
As now written, you have the Germans "invading" the Donbas after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Shouldn't this be "occupied" rather than invaded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...loyal to his Bolshevik principles" - the article has not clarified when Khruschev actually became a Bolshevik by conviction. A word or two should explain what Bolshevik principles would be offended by setting foot in a church.
Better yet, I just piped to Opium of the People. The others I all did. And yes, it was ten, not tin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donbas years
There is no reference to "Donbas" in the section, so the title is somewhat cryptic.
This section is dateless until the third paragraph. When did he go to Rutchenkovo? When was he offered the Pastukhov post? When did he join the CP and when was he appointed a party secretary?
"Bailiwick" should preferably be linked, though the link article is unsatisfactory since it doesn't give the secondary meaning. Maybe consider an alternative term?
Kaganovich protege
"Rightists" may be too vague a term to use in this context. Is it possible to extend this description?
Tompson says the Moscow organization was a "bastion of support for the right opposition", that is, to Stalin, and that after the First Five-Year Plan, there was a resurgence of rightism. After that, he calls them "rightists". I will add they to some extent opposed the government. I doubt they lived long, under the circumstances that would shortly arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph, first line: "he" needs definition
Early relationship with Stalin; involvement in purges
This is an unwieldy section heading. I'm not sure a semicolon is a good idea (it should probably be a colon anyway). The section is basically about Khruschev's role in the purges, so perhaps that should be the main focus within the title.
Clumsy sentence: "Khrushchev expressed his support for these trials as the trials proceeded in 1936:" Perhaps "In 1936, as the trials proceeded, Khruschev expressed his support:" (though "expressed his support" is a bit of a euphemism, considering what he actually said!)
"Party leaders were given numerical quotas of "enemies" to be turned in and arrested." I would like to see a specific citation for this statement.
"...Kiev, which was again the Ukrainian capital.." Unexplained unnecessary detail. Suggest delete "which was again"
Dodgy sentence construction: "Since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, his biographer, William Taubman, suggests that he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering." I suggest "Biographer William Taubman suggests that, since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering."
Done all this. On the Kiev as capital, though, I think we have to leave something about that in there, as Kharkov is mentioned as the Ukrainian capital, so a reader might see that as a factual error. I shortened it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian: Thanks for the review, I agree it is a long article. I will implement them today if I possibly can. I will only leave comments if I do not accept a change or there is some comment I need to have made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of Brian's concerns have been addressed, so far as I can tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am continuing to read and comment on the article, but to avoid this review becoming impossibly lengthy I will post routine comments/queries to the talk page. I will only bring issues here if I consider them significant. Please bear with me if this process takes a little while, but I want to do the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your time, Brian. This is a long article, the longest I've done (though Neville Chamberlain is going to be longer) and everyone has been focused on the 1c issue. Someone has to go in and check for dust on top of the furniture, and you are an excellent person to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are some points of concern, all fairly minor, picked up on reading through to the "Education" section. A much longer list of nitpicks awaits your attention on the talkpage. Unless something untoward happens (collapse of civilization as we know it etc.) I should finish the review tomorrow (ominous news re Chamberlain, though):-
A brief explanation of what Operation Uranus was, might be better than relying on the link. (Great Patriotic War)
Likewise with the fabricated Leningrad case. (Stalin's final years and Struggle for power)
"In September, Khrushchev was elected as First Secretary of the Party." Who "elected" him? (Struggle for control)
Last paragraph of the "Struggle for power" section needs to indicate the direct role played by Khruschev in the demotion of Malenkov, otherwise the final sentence is difficult to understand.
"During Khrushchev's rule, forced hospitalization for the "socially dangerous" was introduced." (Political reform) I would like to see a small amplification of this rather sinister-sounding statement.
The source leaves it at that. I'll see what I can find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One adviser to Khrushchev was agricultural charlatan Trofim Lysenko,..." Not an encyclopedic, or neutral, introduction to this man, even if the description appears warranted.
Fine. I'll alter it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Education: the final paragraph of this subsection is perhaps a little dismissive of the progress made in the Soviet school education system in the Khruschev era. I believe there were some positive reforms. I know the article isn't about that, but perhaps a sentence could be found that recognises that there were some achievements in the education field?
(later)Additional thought: back in the eighties I did a study of post-war Russian education in an option module on Comparative Education as part of an MA course. I don't have those books or notes any more, but I seem to remember that while Khruschev's "polytechnical" educational reforms (broadly what you describe) were deemed a failure, there were significant advances in nursery education and in the develpoment of elite academies. Maybe a source could confirm this?
I've come up with a couple of google books sources on this, I will compose a paragraph in the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite these quibbles, the article is generally very absorbing, and instructional for those of us for whom Khruschev is a remote, near forgotten figure. Odd to realise that he was once, and relatively recently, the most powerful individual in the world. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except as noted is taken care of or will be in the next few minutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. How the mighty have fallen. I will probably need two or three days to address your various points. It all looks reasonable though. Thanks, looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I have completed my prose review. As before, minor points are listed on the talkpage, but I thouht it worth bringing the following here:-
Space program and US visit, last sentence: Why did De Gaulle have this veto on the summit date?
He apparently just said he wasn't available. Plus, he was designated to host as K had just been to the US and had gone to London in 1956. I guess they could have moved it and done without him but then the West would have looked disunited, and it would not have been possible to seriously discuss Berlin. Fairly typical of de Gaulle.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U2 and Berlin crisis: "Emboldened by hints from American officials that East Germany had every right to close its borders,..." Can we have a little more information? What American officials, and when and to whom would such hints have been made?
Bohlen and Fulbright, I've fleshed it out a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Life in retirement: It would be useful to have some indication as to what 500 rubles per month represented, as an income in the USSR in 1964. Is it possible, by way of a footnote perhaps, to compare this with the average wages of a 1964 USSR manual worker, or white-collar worker, or professional?
That's pretty difficult, because we don't know exactly what he had to pay for. He did not have to pay rent, I'm pretty sure of that, he had a chauffeur and state car (low grade official grade), plus some other labor was apparently provided for him. Of course, they were KGB, but even so. The only reference I can find is an initial concern by Khrushchev that Nina Petrovna might have trouble making ends meet, but there's no further talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a truly monumental article, whch I found interesting from start to finish, to the extent that I scarcely noticed its formidable length. I am sure others will find likewise. I intend to leave it for a day, then re-read it when, presumably, my points will have been absorbed (or refuted). I will then update my declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done everything or left comments, excepting the education bit, which I will work on in a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's done too subject to the note I put on your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have spent considerable time on this article and have seen it improve in the process, from a fairly high base I might add. My various points have been suitably addressed. I have posted one final quibble concerning the WW1 period, but it is very minor, and I look forward to seeing the article's future promotion. A terrific achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed Fifelfoo's 2c objections (I don't consider 1c actionable) and have asked him to withdraw his 2c objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment. I notice that many of the images have been culled from the article for justifiable copyright concerns (important). But, I have a problem in understanding how freedom of panorama laws apply, for example to this photograph, which I admit is mine (and would love to see put back in the article so perhpas I have a conflict of interest). The "law" did not apply at the time I took this photograph, and his grave looks completely different today. Also, freedom of panorama is surely only a concern wrt images from the Commons, not those on a local server. I am not convinced that the deletion of the more recent photographs of his grave that were taken by both me and the nominator, at different times, is justified. I think a photograph of his grave would gracefully conclude this now excellent contribution. This aside, well done indeed for bringing one of my favourite articles up to FA standard. I could not have done this. Graham ColmTalk 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed it from the article as I put my own photo of Khrushchev's grave in, which fell to the axe of the A class image review under the freedom of panorama. I had thought only one photo of K's grave needed. I would ask that whoever is doing the image review also review the image GrahamColm has provided (if he misses it, I'll leave a note on his talk page), and if it passes muster I will gladly put it in. Also, if we can get by the freedom of panorama problem on the photos of the monument (perhaps the image reviewer would comment on that too), I'd happily put either mine or GrahamColm's image of the well known grave monument into the article. The image I put in the legacy section of the khrushcheby being destroyed is for sure inferior to the grave image. Thank you for the support and the praise (you sell yourself short, by the way). Khrushchev is quite a character. I have a sneaking admiration for him, sitting staring at the screen next to Stalin, wondering if he would ever have the chance to be #1 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have five supports, one oppose which I've commented on why it should not be deemed a barrier to promotion. We still need the image check, and I know it's been requested. Maybe we'll get lucky and have a vodka celebration this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg - Purpose of "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the subject of the photo is the subject of the article" is not specific (NFCC#10C) or detailed (WP:FURG vis-a-vis NFCC#10C) and is untrue (this is the Khruschev article, not the May Day or Политбюро article); if it were true, would it not then fail NFCC#1? (The subject, Khrushchev, has a free image.)
Regarding the grave image, I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is. Freedom of panorama is a limitation of a copyright holder's excluive rights to works that are on permanent public display (here, a photograph of Khrushchev). The degree of such limitations, or even their existance in the first place, differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It does not exist in the United States (save an exemption for buildings). The Russian Federation does not limit preclusion of commercial use (i.e. commercial use is disallowed), so Graham's derivative photograph isn't free enough for our purposes. Depending on the degree the grave has changed ("looks completely different today")--i.e. whether the Khrushchev photo has been removed--it might not even be expected to meet the requirement of "permanence". The image of Khruschchev may indeed not have been protected by copyright at the time the photo was taken, however the copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) set forth a term of 50 years p.m.a. that has been determined to be retroactive to previously unprotected works. Эlcobbolatalk 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Khrushgrave.jpg This shows the grave today; I took it myself in August. It is now entirely different (it is not unusual in that cemetery to have a temporary marker while an artistic permeanent grave monument is being prepared). I have removed the two problematical images and added the pd ineligible tag to the sig image. I won't add Graham's image back into the article without someone's OK, but I think we are now fine on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one thing: File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. From what source was it traced? Otherwise images look fine. Unfortunately, the current grave image has the same issue as the 1973 version (i.e. as a derivative, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be considered). Эlcobbolatalk 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the image. Signatures are pure decoration, in my view. OK, image check done, links and dab check done, 5 supports, 1 oppose which does not reflect the consensus on 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I participated more in the discussion of 1c at WT:FAC, I'm going to leave this to Karanacs (also because she edits in the area of History). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion needed here? "sold the USSR 5,000 tons of seed " Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there are a few more needed: "the harvest of 107.5 million tons of grain was down from a peak of 134.7 million tons in 1958." Check throughout the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article size
Can reviewers please comment on the page size? The readable prose size is currently 85 kB (13743 words), which would make this tied for the 4th longest FA, and is significantly above the WP:SIZE recommendation of 6,000 - 10,000 words. Proper use of summary style is part ofWP:WIAFA (criterion 4), and I want to make sure that this has been adequately examined before closing the FAC. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with splitting is that I cannot find a section that justifiably should be split... the guy had a very interesting life, including presiding over one of the most interesting periods of Soviet-American relations. I think that the plethora of events that Krush took part in justifies an article of this length. —Ed(talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above. Khrushchev was the leader of the powerful and vast Soviet Union at a most interesting time. It would be difficult to reduce the length of the article without subsequent complaints on the Talk Page that important events were not adequately covered. It might be just my old and biased view, but it seems to me that the importance of this man to the history of the 20th century is in danger of being forgotten. The article is so well written that it is a joy rather than a chore to read. I say keep it as it is with regard to the length—I think the balance between comprehensiveness and summary style has been well struck. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur as nominator. The bulkiest part of the article is the foreign policy, especially US, and that is also what most people will be looking to read about, and should not be spun off. Khrushchev did a lot of stuff in his life, and this is simply the number of words needed to do justice, in summary style, to his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in this case, that an extraordinary length is justified. Wouldn't want to see it used, however, as a precedent for other world leader articles that may turn up here in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As our longest FA biography (in terms of readable prose), this would set a precedent. Khrushchev is not the only former world leader about whom much has been written, and an acceptance of this length for this article implies that the length will be acceptable about other leaders who have been heavily covered. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... what if I were to split off the pre 1949 material into an article, say, Life of Nikita Khrushchev prior to 1949. Because I'm really getting a sense from the delegates that this is an issue for them and I'm not willing to swim upstream. I will say I am not convinced it is an improvement to the article. I can't very well call the article "early life of" by the way, given that he was 55 in 1949.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By having subarticles, you could reduce this article in size while also opening up room for a great deal more content about Khrushchev. A long article is justified, but it's important to have subarticles to facilitate further growth of the content. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creation of spin-off articles is important, but I cannot see how breaking up this would help improve Wikipedia. It says at the top of my page "We’ve created the greatest collection of shared knowledge in history" - dare I say this: although content building is important, more important is quality. Of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, relatively few are anywhere near the standard of this article. To me, the FAC process is not about building content, it is about encouraging high quality contributions. OK, it is a long article, but not so long that it should be denied FA recognition.Graham ColmTalk 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't commented on the FAC, but happened to see this question posed. As the main editor of a couple of long GA/almost-FA biographies that go over the 10,000 word suggested guideline, I feel that limit is too low for certain kinds of articles, and this here is one of them. It's often better to tell a coherent biographical narrative in one place than to split it up, especially given that page view stats consistently show that readership of biographical subarticles ("Early life of X", etc.) is very, very low, for every subject from Isaac Newton to Sarah Palin. So I think this article size is appropriate. And also, the load time for this article is surprisingly quick, probably because of the citation style used and not having too many navboxes and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I have to agree with Wasted Time R. Although this is a fairly long article, I don't think it should be split up into smaller articles to reduce its length. It loads quickly, it isn't a terribly long read like the German Inner Border FAC was, and quite honestly it's a bloody good article. Keep it as it is! Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
