Talk:6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1

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

Reviewer: --Ruling party (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This interests me a great deal. I recently wrote about the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and another article about the Lao communists. I will have a review for you by the end of the day. Before I started the review, I made a quick copyedit to fix the language. Please take a look at my edits --Ruling party (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never reviewed an article, so I hope you bear with me! --Ruling party (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've copyedited it again. On the whole, there are some areas of improvements. I will recheck it tomorrow for some mistakes :) But I will give you one advice. It would help if you were a bit more consistent. In the lead, you write "6th Congress" (that is what the article is called) and in the body, you wrote Sixth Congress. It also confused me in the beginning that you referred to the communist party as both KPJ and SKJ (you need to pick one - I picked one for you). --Ruling party (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Very good. I have only one comment. A communist society can't introduce liberal policies - a communist is by definition anti-liberal (at least the Tito brand). A communist can, however, introduce policies that liberalize society and which leads to liberalization. Important here. Western/liberal democratic scholars have conceived the term liberalization to describe policies that make communist societies a tiny bit more similar to our societies. It describes in this sense change which we would define as a positive direction. However, Tito did not introduce liberal reforms.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My main contention is that its too short. Her's my reasoning:
 * Somebody who knows nothing about the topic should be able to understand why things were happening, why they did what they did, and the result. I get that they reformed because of Stalin, but why didn't they chose North Korea, the Ceauceascu road, Dubcek, Xi Jinping el cetra el cetra??? Why these reforms?
 * The article states that old policies were put to an end... But what were the old policies? I know, since I know something about this topic, that it was state-led Stalinist central planning. But not everyone knows this.
 * What is workers' self-management? The article says that the 6th Congress approved it, but it's never explained what workers self-management actually was. For all I know - from reading this article - it could be freewheeling capitalism or Zimbabwe like despotism.
 * What was the agenda of the 6th Congress? I'm guessing it was 1) Political Report of the 5th Central Committee, Report of the 5th Central Auditing Commission, electing the 6th Central Committee, amending the party charter, approval of five-year plan and approval of new policies... I know more than the average person than this, but the article doesn't say anything about it.
 * Changes were made to the party charter, but what changes? Were things replaced? Were things removed? Did the party get a radically new charter?
 * First, a party congress doesn't elect the party leader. The 1st Plenary Session of the newly-elected Central Committee elects its head, the politburo, secretariat, etc. This should be stated, but it is instead treated as the same.
 * How were the party delegates elected? Were there multi-candidate elections or Stalinist election with one candidate per party unit?
 * It lasted for five days... Was this one of those party congresses members could debate policies? How were the proceedings organised? Was it a Brezhnevite congress in which the leaders spoke, and the delegates listened? Or were their actual discussions?
 * I don't know if it's true of Yugoslavia, but normally the Central Committee meetings preceding the congress are usually quite intense. The political elite discusses their proposal before its officially announced.
 * A draft proposal of the political report is normally, in every communist society I know of, sent for discussion in all party units before the congress. If not the party drafts at least some general pointers... Did they do it here? If so, what did they state and discuss?
 * The composition of the Central Committee, Central Auditing Commission, the Executive Committee and the Secretariat (not mentioned) are barely discussed. Who were the new members? Were they state apparatchiks? Were most reelected? Since, as you wrote, the party would quickly split over ideological questions later on... Does this mean that the Executive Committee was equally split along reformist and anti-reformist line? Or was it pro and anti-Tito? --Ruling party (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is really up to you. This is an interesting article, and I hope you chose to continue working on it. If you do, I will assist by copyediting the text :)
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Give me a signal on what you plan to do! --Ruling party (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time and effort to review the article.

Regarding the KPJ/SKJ abbreviations - the party formally changed its name (and abbreviation) at the congress, and the change is noted in the prose. It would therefore be incorrect to use only one abbreviation.

I'll respond on other issues you have raised shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

, I had to check there for a moment, but it seems to me that some of the complaints are not consistent with WP:WIAGA, i.e. GA criteria. You obviously have a very good understanding of the article topic, but (at least some of) the issues you raise are more likely needed for FA than GA. For instance, there is no requirement in the GA criteria regarding article being too short.

There certainly is room for some improvement, but per WP:SUMMARY, the content meant for the article on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia should not be repeated here.

Also, I'm fine with addition of redlinks IF they meet general notability criteria, but I'm far from convinced that "6th Executive Committee" meets WP:GNG.

I agree that the things you brought up would improve the article, but I'm not quite sure that these may be required at this (GA) level. For example, look at the What the Good article criteria are not essay which says "Good articles are "satisfactory" or "decent" articles, not great articles. The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria."

On the other hand, I would hate to see a nominating editor (i.e. me) directing the reviewer in any way because that would be wrong. In conclusion, I don't think there is any point in pursuing further. I'll revise the article at some point to address some of the issues you raised. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) You're probably right in that some of the problems here might be relevant to FA more than GA. Still, my point here isn't necessarily the length but rather that I don't really understand from reading this article what was actually going on. This matters for all articles, whether they are stubs or FAs. That is, I think it fails point three of WP:GACN.
 * 2) I'm saying you need to expound on anything.. but for instance, the "The 6th Congress approved the policy of workers' self-management, a form of management in which the workers have a say in production." Doesn't need to be more than this, but at least the reader can read this article without jumping back and forth between articles. The same goes for old policies; what were the old policies? Its like me saying "I was able to buy a Tesla after he I changed my accountant." Most people would, understandably, wonder how change of accountant influenced by decision to buy a Tesla. My point here is this; you're telling half the story and there the article is not broad in its coverage.
 * 3) As for the 6th Executive Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, see 19th Politburo of the Communist Party of China and the 22nd Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (which is an FL) for instance. The Politburo/Executive Committee functioned as the "communist cabinet". You wouldn't say that the current Croatian prime minister's government cabinet wouldn't meet WP:GNG would you? Besides—I've never written such an article–I believe that you will have the chance to summarise the basic decisions and leading conflict that took place at the time. I will also add that English WP currently has two articles on elected central committees of the Yugoslav party (check the party template).
 * 4) The grammar I would say is still an issue.
 * However. I hear you're complaints! :) I will ask some editors at the GAN talk page for advice! --Ruling party (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability of the 6th exec comm has nothing to do with notability of the 19th politburo of the CPC (see WP:OTHER).

As I said, maybe it's better to let this one go, at least for the time being.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Of course. But saying that the Executive Committee, the leading organ of state and society of Yugoslavia from 52 to 58 isn't notable is far-fetched, especially when 11 out of 12 individuals have articles. But this is not really related to the article; we can disagree to disagree :)
 * 2) I've asked the editors at GAN. Maybe someone will respond. I'm fairly certain of my position, but we'll see. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm wrong :) --Ruling party (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm grateful for your helpful pointers what is missing in the article. Some of them can be addressed from limited reliable sources on the topic, some cannot. However, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with a review pointing out some of the issues should be overlooked because they probably belong to FA (as you also noted above) and not GA because there are always questions where broad scope ends and comprehensive begins. That would be as if the nominator is deflecting and directing the review instead of the reviewer - and that should not happen. Other editors are welcome to offer their opinion, but it ultimately must be up to you as the reviewer: If you feel the scope is too narrow, or that any other criterion is far from met, you are more than justified to fail the nomination.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify - I'm withdrawing the nomination for the above reasons (per WP:GAN/I). --Tomobe03 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments
Hi, as per WT:GAN, I do have some additional thoughts. First, I think whilst the above does show that more could be made, I don't think the article isn't suitably broad. It's worth mentioning that BROAD simply means that it covers all the basics, not that it's a comprehensive study. That said, I do worry that a novice reader (such as myself) would have some issues understanding what is being talked about here. I'd suggest tightening up the lede a bit, and having a better introductory para.


 * The 6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ) was held in Zagreb on 2–7 November 1952, and was attended by 2,022 delegates representing 779,382 party members. - a lede sentence would generally say in super basic English what the article is about. The above is fine for the second or third sentence. Might I suggest starting off without having to use the title, like: "The Communist Party of Yugoslavia held it's sixth congress meeting at Zagreb on 2–7 November 1952." or similar. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth mentioning what building it is. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. What building you are refering to?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It occured to me that you may mean the building where the congress was held. Judging from the exterior photo and the date of the event, that would be Zagreb Fair building in Savska Street. However, I have no source to back this up, this is just based on what I think is depicted, and what makes sense - there would not be that many indoor venues capable of hosting two thousand people in Zagreb at the time from what I know. All sources I could find just say "in Zagreb" not bothering to say Zagreb Fair or anything else for that matter. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous review is right in stating that it is either "6th" or "Sixth". Is it a proper noun for Congress to be capitalised? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be worth a short para just commenting that this was the sixth congress, that the first was in 1919, and just a short introduction as to what the League of Communists of Yugoslavia is. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. RL stepped in - I hope to be back editing (and responding to your comments) tomorrow--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed a few of the above issues, but I'd need some more info about the building issue (see above). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Added info on the building too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - this is still your GA review, but I think the broad criteria is mostly met, and I've added a couple more points that I think make it a bit more readable. I suggest a promotion, but this is yours to close, if you wish. If you have further knowledge on the subject, might I suggest taking a look and helping the article fill these minor holes after the review is closed to help improve the encyclopaedia? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry late reply :P I think it's best that you to the passing. I still don't consider this a good article. To take an example, the title is "6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" but he writes "sixth congress". Is the article wrongly titled? --Ruling party (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The title is capitalised per MOS:TITLECASE. The ordinal number 6th is spelled out per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:SPELL09. If you think the article should be named differently, there is always the process to propose to move the article to a new name - but that has nothing to to with GA review. , do you have any specific MOS issue that could be addressed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

, I find it problematic that you say things like "I still don't consider this a good article" instead of pointing to a specific actionable mismatch with GA criteria, and ask should a number be spelled or word capitalised instead of pointing to a specific MOS rule the article is not in compliance with. This way it seems you are judging the article on subjective rather than objective criteria. In the above review you have mainly complained about breadth of scope and after disagreeing with me, you went to get a 3rd opinion. It seems to me you got one opinion supporting my view re scope. You have complained about spelling out the number 6 and/or title capitalisation and I have just pointed out relevant MOS rules supporting present solutions. Other than that I'm left with your view that this is not a GA for unspecified reasons. --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You've improved the article a great deal, but I still don't feel it covers the subject. There is more information on "Background" and "Aftermath" then the actual congress itself. I still feel it fails in its coverage on what the article is about.
 * However, the writing has improved considerably. I can see that you've worked considerably on it the last couple of days. The flow of the text has dramatically improved.
 * That's why I said could take over. I will fail this if the coverage does not improve, but I believe you can improve this by the end of the week. The question is; are you willing to increase the article scope and coverage? If yes, I'll give you time to improve and supervise. If not I'll fail it. --Ruling party (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

have you even taken time to review the GA criteria - specifically criteria 3a and 3b (at WP:WIAGA)? Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion if you are perfectly willing to proceed on a personal whim instead? I am aware that this is your first review ever and that everyone has to learn sometime, but I see no point in stubbornly ignoring established review criteria because (as you pointed out above) you think you know better. As stated above, you have not pointed out any GA criteria mismatch except complaining about the scope of the article and then ignored the 3rd opinion you solicited on your own initiative. (Including the GAN talk advice from uninvolved editors to which your reply was "Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently".) Since I cannot determine what is your personal preference for the scope except that some of it (as you said above) really belongs to FA, I see no point in dragging out this utterly unhelpful review. Please fail this article already so it could be reviewed later on objective criteria.

thank you very much for your remarks. Even though your opinion was rejected by the reviewer, I feel that the article improved as a result of yourpinput. --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying its my personal whim, but the WP GA Criteria says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" which I don't think it does... And instead of saying "OK" you're saying I havn't read the GA criteria... --Ruling party (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the 3a cirterion says also says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" with footnote that "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." i.e. you neglect a very important part of the criterion.


 * The 3b criterion says "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." so including most of the things you point out would go into unnecessary detail and run against this. For example, list of members of the Central Auditing Commission is not a main aspect of the topic in any universe.


 * You disagree on interpretation of these criteria with the nominator and with the 3rd opinion editor - as the entirely inexperienced reviewer - and yet insist on your personal interpretation... so yes, this is on your whim.


 * I guess when you said at WT:GAN you said "@Whiteguru, Lee Vilenski, and Buidhe: Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently :)" you really meant but not just now, just because so it really is on your whim.


 * As I already asked (and you ignored the question) Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion on precisely the issue your complain about if you are perfectly willing to ignore it? It sure looks like it's just because you don't like the opinion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that, but in my defence I haven't asked for a comprehensive article. What I wrote over is that you've written more about the background and aftermath of the congress than the actual congress itself. THe problem with the congress is its bare. I'm calling for comprehensiveness, but I'm calling for a basic overview of the proceedings and happening which I feel this article fails. Do you have any more comments? --Ruling party (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, you are now explicitly saying you are calling for comprehensiveness even after I just pointed out that the GA criteria explicitly says "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles." You are obvously unwilling or unable to implement clear GA scope criteria and prefer to "wing" it. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote "I haven't asked for comprehensiveness". This is a breach of WP:BADFAITH. I'm failing this if you don't actually have any reedming comments coming.
 * Just a tips. When someone says it can improve you don't need to become super defence and accusative.. You can say "OK. I don't know if I wholly agree with you, but I'll do some extra work". --Ruling party (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies I misread the comment, but you in fact ask for only comprehensiveness thereby failing to comply with the criteria.
 * Of course I'm defensive of my nom. And of course I'm curious about why you continue to evade the question of why bother asking for 3rd opinion you ignore since you continue to evade it - especially when it is specifically dealing with the scope... while dishing out the accusation of bad faith.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, re "When someone says it can improve you don't need to become super defence and accusative" - please note that the 3rd opinion editor gave specific actionable comments, which are addressed in full. But those were within GA scope.


 * In summation, I found your review quite unhelpful. I know it's only your first attempt at GA review and that your knowledge of the topic may have tempted you to ignore rules and press for personal wishes regarding what you think is significant in the article. You have asked for and received feedback at WT:GAN regarding your reviewing - I only wish you would take their advice. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest closing this discussion if you don't think it meets the criteria? The article can be re-nominated at any point, and might I suggest it is? Right now the reason you seem to be unhappy seems to revolve around the section on the Congress being shorter than other sections, which isn't really part of the guidelines, nor something particularly actionable. I attempted to step in and offer some advice, but if you ask for help, are too headstrong to listen to it, perhaps it is better to disengage. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Eight days have gone since the reviewer has posted any actionable comment or indeed failed the review as threatened on multiple occasions. Can I assume the reviewer has abandoned/withdrawn from the review?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This obviously isn't going anywhere - it's been over two weeks with nothing from the reviewer. I'll ping just in case they've forgotten about this, but if we don't hear anything in a day or two I'll be glad to take over the review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've failed it. --Ruling party (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)