Talk:1976 Conference of Communist and Workers Parties of Europe/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm happy to give this article its GA review if I may be permitted ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the Introduction Working on it. Oakley77 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice side-bar, good use of postage stamp as image. However, are there any actual images – preferably photographs - of the event itself that we could use under a claim of historical fair use ?
 * "held in East Berlin June 29-30, 1976"... I have to say that this isn't particularly good English. Perhaps try "held in the city of East Berlin, capital of the communist-governed East Germany, on 29-30 June 1976" ?
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "29 parties participated in the conference" - I think that this third sentence could actually be placed second, and maybe expanded. For instance, it could state that "29 parties from across Europe participated in the conference, including those which were in power in the Eastern Bloc and those with marginal electoral support in the west."
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that overall, this introduction has to be fleshed out and expanded quite a bit, perhaps to several paragraphs in length, in order to reflect the entirety of the article. For instance, here it doesn't mention any of the preparations for the conference, or the aftermath, which it really has to do to earn GA status.

Regarding the Background


 * Assume that the reader knows nothing about 20th century Europe. Perhaps provide a very brief explanation of what Communism is/was. Certainly, it would be of benefit to mention that in 1976, Communist governments were in control in most of Eastern Europe, but not in Western Europe. Make note of the powerful role that the Soviet Union played in influencing these nations. This doesn't need to be longer than a paragraph, but it will provide a very basic introduction to readers who simply don't know this stuff.


 * "The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties was a debacle for its Soviet hosts, as several parties had boycotted the event (such as the Korean and Vietnamese parties) whilst others condemned the 1968 military intervention in Czechoslovakia during the meeting. In the end no more than 60 parties agreed to sign the final declaration without reservations".
 * We could see some improvements in language here, just to make it all read a little more smoothly. How about replacing that opening sentence with "Held in Moscow, the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties was a debacle for its Soviet hosts, as several parties (most notably the Workers Party of Korea and the Workers Party of Vietnam), had boycotted the event, whilst others had used the meeting as a platform to condemn the Soviet Union's 1968 military intervention in Czechoslovakia." Make sure that you add a link in to the Prague Spring, else many reader's will have no idea what that 1968 intervention had been.
 * We must also make it clear that the Koreans and Vietnamese were not boycotting the conference because of the Prague Spring,which the current wording could suggest.


 * "After 1969, proposals were raised to hold a new world conference of communist parties. In particular the Soviet party hoped to regain lost prestige through such an event."
 * How about "Following the 1969 colloquium, proposals were put forward for a second international conference, with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union hoping to regain its lost prestige through such an event."


 * "There were also many constituents of the world communist movement (many parties in Asia and some parties in Europe) that were opposed to the holding of a world conference."
 * Again, maybe this could be improved through a few minor changes. For instance, try "However, many constituents of the world communist movement, primarily in Asia but also in Europe, were opposed to the holding of a second international conference." Why were they opposed to this idea; was it due to the Sino-Soviet Split ? If so, maybe we should mention that.


 * "In the mid-1970s, most of the main communist parties of Europe expressed an interest in holding a pan-European conference of communist parties."
 * How about "Rather than holding a meeting representing the global communist movement, by the mid-1970s, most of the main communist parties in Europe had expressed an interest in holding a specifically European conference instead."


 * "During this period, there were several processes across Europe that were breaking the status quo and opening new possibilities for the communists of Western Europe, such as the transitions to democracy in the Iberian peninsula or the end of the isolation of the French and Italian communists in domestic parliamentary politics."
 * The use of language here is perhaps a little more complicated and esoteric than necessary; try "During that decade, several political changes had occurred in Western Europe that various communist parties wanted to take advantage of; notably, Spain and Portugal had overseen the transition from right-wing military dictatorships to representative democracies, while the parliamentary isolation faced by the French and Italian communist parties had come to an end."


 * "For the Soviets, 'Eurocommunism' was a taboo term. Through holding a conference, the Soviet party hoped to achieve a document constituting a de facto charter of the European communist movement. Soviet discourse did at the time emphasize the importance of a united communist movement across the continent, denying differences between parties and labelling the distinction between Eastern and Western Europe as artificial."
 * "By "the Soviets", I assume that the author is referring to the Soviet government, not the Soviet people ? If so, then we should state "the Soviet government." Why did they think that "Eurocommunism" was a taboo term ? In fact, what is Eurocommunism ? All these things need to be addressed.

Regarding the Aftermath
 * What were Neues Deutschland and Pravda; who published them ?
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Preparations
 * "There was a prolonged process of preparations before the conference convened."
 * "preparation" over "preparations" here.
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Various meetings were held (accounts vary between 12 and 16 held between October 1974 and June 1976), during which intense negotations took place.
 * "negotations" should be the correctly spelled "negotiations". The word "held" used twice in quick succession.
 * Try "Intense negotiations took place between October 1974 and June 1967, although accounts vary as to how many meetings actually took place, with claims ranging from 12 to 16."
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * State that Warsaw is the capital of Poland.
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Throughout the preparatory process[,]", that comma is needed.
 * Done. Oakley77 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Unlike the previous International Meetings of Communist and Workers Parties, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia participated in the preparations and the conference (the Party of Labour of Albania did not participate)"
 * Change to "Unlike the previous International Meetings of Communist and Workers Parties, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia participated in the preparations and the conference, although the Party of Labour of Albania did not."
 * Why did the Albanians not take part ? And for that matter, why did the Yugoslavs decide to ?


 * "The Communist Party of Greece (Interior), a Eurocommunist splinter group, was barred from participating in the conference.[15] The Icelandic People's Alliance boycotted the conference.[16]"
 * Again, the reader needs to know why these things happened.


 * "sharp differences between the parties were manifested during the preparatory process"
 * This should read "parties manifested during"... The "were" is superfluous.

Regarding the Debates and document
 * The two images are nice, but why are they both positioned on the right ? Move one over to the left, just to make it all a little more aesthetically pleasing.
 * "Albeit without direct polemical exchanges, the speeches made at the conference showed diversity between positions the communist parties present"
 * This doesn't even seem to make any sense, it definitely needs rewriting.


 * "favoured a democratic state,"
 * "favoured a representative democratic state" ? Or perhaps "favoured a multiparty democratic state" ?


 * "Berlinguer stated that..."
 * Who was Berlinguer and why is his view important ?


 * "other delegates whom re-affirmed..."
 * "who", not "whom"


 * "several novelties compared to previous practices"
 * This could be rewritten to be a little more specific.


 * "a reference to the 'great ideas' of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and V. I. Lenin.[21] References to 'proletarian internationalism' were substituted with the term 'international solidarity'. Moreover, the document stated that fraternal criticism between communist parties would not constitute anti-communism (implying that criticism of Soviet policies would not be considered as 'anti-Sovietism', as the official Soviet discourse had argued).[20] "
 * All of these should be in quotation marks.


 * The final three sentences should not stand alone; group them all together as a single paragraph.


 * "Unlike the declaration of the 1969 meeting, the Berlin conference document did not contain any condemnation of China.[8] The Soviets had pushed for a condemnation of China ahead of the conference, but the Yugoslavs, the French and the Italians resisted these moves"
 * The Sino-Soviet Split must be explained and linked to here.

Regarding the Aftermath
 * "In particular the speech of Carrillo was very difficult for the Soviets to digest"
 * Some readers who are not accustomed to the English language might believed that this is a reference to the biological digestive system, so maybe change the wording here. Equally, why did the Soviets dislike Carrillo's speech?


 * "Soviet party at times responded in kind to Eurocommunist critiques through veiled ideological counter-accusations.[3][21][29] A notable counter-attack by the orthodox camp was an article by Zhivkov in Problems of Peace and Socialism in December 1976, which decried Eurocommunism as an anti-Soviet 'subversion against proletarian internationalism'.[4]"
 * The first sentence doesn't make much sense.
 * Who is Zhivkov ? And use quotation marks here.


 * "documentation, that the Soviets had tried to portray a greater degree of unity between the parties than what had actually been the case at the conference"
 * "documentation, and that the Soviets had tried to portray a greater degree of unity between the parties than [remove what] had actually been the case at the conference

Regarding the Participants
 * This article has "Northern Ireland" classified under "Ireland" rather than "Great Britain" ? Surely it should be classified alongside Great Britain under "United Kingdom" ?

Overall Issues This is a well-referenced and interesting article, and I applaud those who wrote it for making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. However, this article should really have been submitted for peer review before GA review, as per Wikipedia policy. What I have done here is - in effect - to provide that peer review. It will certainly require more work before it can be given GA status. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC))

Checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are quite a few prose problems here, and this is a major stumbling block to receiving GA status. Major work is necessary.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This article makes use of a wide range of academic sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are still a few issues here that need addressing; further background information required.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Fail:
 * As the necessary improvements have not been made, I reluctantly fail this article from reaching GA status.
 * Fail:
 * As the necessary improvements have not been made, I reluctantly fail this article from reaching GA status.


 * Please note the concerns raised at WT:GAN. --Rschen7754 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)