Talk:6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA2

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this GAN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I start reviewing, I'd like to note for the record that I don't consider myself to be bound by the previous nomination. There were a number of objections to the review's fidelity to the criteria (see here), and the nominator was thus within his rights to let the article fail and then immediately renominate it. In any event, good article reviews aren't subject to stare decisis: Subsequent nominations are conducted on a blank slate. I will thus consider the points raised by the previous reviewer, but I will exercise my independent judgment in assessing the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Review
I'll have more to say later. Until then, thanks for your persistence with this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Further comments to come. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC) The article is thanks to you making good progress, and we should be able to finish this up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of minor copyediting, none of which should change the meaning of what you are saying.
 * Unlike the previous reviewer, I'm really not that concerned about broadness. There clearly hasn't been a whole lot of scholarship on this particular congress, and so it's inappropriate to expect a lengthy article. (In addition, courtesy of WP:GANOT, "Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion." See also How Brown Saw the Baseball Game, which is a featured article at half the size of this article.) There are some expansions that can be made, but generally speaking this article is quite close to meeting the criteria.
 * All sources are reliable; I'll check the specific references at a later time.
 * put on the shelf - that means "delayed; put on hiatus". I think you mean something like "superseded; replaced" but I want to be sure.
 * You're right - corrected.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do your sources mention how was the congress convened? Was it a regularly scheduled meeting, or did someone have to call it into session? If the latter, who? Why?
 * Any idea how the delegates to the congress were chosen?
 * The sources I have do not say, but I'll take a look around. Normally that was done by the basic party organisation(s) choosing one delegate per 385 (in this case) members, normally one "suggested" from "above" or by a prominent member among their ranks. Let me get back to you on this and convening (it was nothing extraordinary in terms of convening, but again, not much in the sources I have).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have checked the sources already used in this article and others listed in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia article and found nothing. Searches of Ceeol, Hrčak and Jstor also got me nowhere. I have gained access to a 1977 History of the SKJ/KPJ by Morača, Bilandžić and Stojanović and they do not mention anything. Grzunov (cited in the article) notes that the party charter envisaged convening of the congress once every four years - and since the previous one was held in 1948, it appears to be a regularly scheduled thing - but this is virtually all I managed to source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the "Background" section seems more like it belongs in the "Decisions" section - it seems to summarize what happened at the congress more than anything else. Any particular reason why it's there?
 * It actually covers economic (actually politcal-economic) developments from late 1949 to mid 1952. I have edited the paragraph to clarify. Please have another look--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine - I think I was just confused. It makes sense now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The congress adopted two resolutions – on the role of the SKJ and submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission. - This sentence confuses me. Does it mean that the two resolutions both related to the role of the SKJ? If so, I would get rid of the dash and explain what the two resolutions were. If it means something else, you might want to just reword the sentence.
 * No, only one was on the role of the SKJ. It seems something was missing there, so I tried to clarify what is meant there. Please have another look.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks fine now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet. - I think a word is missing here.
 * Indeed. It should read "...Soviet threat" - added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to wikilink rapprochement since many readers may be unfamiliar with the term.
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this journal article, which suggests that the 6th Congress barred all religious people from party membership. That might be an interesting addition, although I'm not sure if the site is paywalled.
 * Nice catch. Got access to the article and added a couple of sentences on the matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * they instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress...Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet threat - the sources (Haig at 139 and Lilly at 213) seem to indicate that it was Stalin's death that reduced the Soviet threat, thereby making further democratization unnecessary. The article seems to suggest that Tito cut back on democratization to reduce the Soviet threat. Am I reading the sources correctly?
 * Stalin's death was a major contributor to de-escalation of Soviet-Yugoslav tensions, but it did not mean automatic normalisation of relations. In mid-1953 when the second plenary session took place the countries had yet to exchange ambassadors (happened in late 1953). Khruschev signalled to Tito his intent to restore normal relations in July 1954 and that formally took place a year later with Khruschev's visit to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavs (i.e. Tito) apparently felt in the period that there is sufficiently credible Soviet military threat to Yugoslavia and went ahead with establishing the Balkan Pact in 1953 and Bled Agreement in 1954 with Greece and Turkey. Now, I don't have a source saying explicitly "Tito felt Soviet military threat credible in 1953-1955", but establishing a military alliance with two NATO members seems to point to this conclusion. I added a couple of sentences to clarify this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my concern is more that there isn't a source for "Tito assum[ed] that such course of action (i.e. democratization) would reduce the Soviet threat." You cite Haug, but she is saying only that Tito "predict[ed] that this (i.e. the death of Stalin) would decrease the Soviet security threat to the Yugoslavs" and that he thus had no reason to pursue reforms. Is there a source that says that Tito's rollback of democratization was intended to reduce the Soviet threat? (Sorry for the inartful wording of my previous comment.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, you're right, I misread that... actually I misinterpreted what was referred to by "this". I reworked that paragraph to reflect the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't blame you: Haug's sentence is worded rather poorly. (Perhaps she should have submitted her book to WP:GOCE/REQ.) Anyway, it looks good now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sixth congress also signalled a decline in critical discourse. - you might want to elaborate on that. Why did this decline occur?
 * Added explanation and also elaborated on the conflict regarding the pace of decentralisation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Territorial basic organisations were set up to replace the Communist Party of the Soviet Union-styled party cells. Was this just a new name or was it a substantive change? If the former, I'd clarify it; if the latter, I'd briefly explain what the difference was.
 * Not mere name change, but not exactly spectacular difference. A cell could be set up as a party organisation within say a factory, and now such cells were merged on territorial basis (generally city or municipality). The source I have used right now does not offer this clarification explicitly, so I'll have a look around for another clarifying the change.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Found a source describing post-1952 structure and explaining that the basic organisation could be subdivided into cells, but that the instruction to reduce bureaucracy was implemented (at local level) by abolishing the cells. As regards the territorial organisation of the party, I added a passage on this (from Grzunov as a new source): In short, 1) the basic orgs could have cells; 2) the basic orgs were grouped territorially (by municipality) 3) the municipal committee could override any decision of the basic org or determine the matter in advance (unless the municipal comm ignored the matter); this relationship was replicated on the levels of the municipal to district comm, district to republican (e.g. SKH) central committee and the latter's relationship to the SKJ central committee. I assume that Ramet is saying that the party became more territorialised because such structure and fewer administration officials would make it impossible for each superior level to review many day-to-day matters which would thus remain territorial (i.e. municipal, district, republican) - but I have no source outlining this. In order to avoid making a synthesis on my own, I opted to add sourced explanation of the structure, the party directive to reduce (and actual reduction) of professional party staff and overall abolition of party cells so readers may or may not conclude the same.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It re-elected Tito as the General Secretary of the SKJ - The linked article says that the Central Committee appointed him to this position, not the congress. What do your sources say? I can think of a number of possibilities.
 * Edited to clarify, please take another look.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The party Articles - are these the same as "the party charter" mentioned in the subsequent paragraph? If so, you might want to use the same term (charter is clearer, in my view) and/or move the sentences together.
 * Yes, that's the same document - fixed--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Paragraph beginning The party charter specified that basic organisations - This paragraph just seems a bit out of place - it doesn't seem to pertain to any particular decision of the 6th congress - and I'm not sure how much of it is ultimately necessary to understanding the post-6th congress changes. Perhaps it would be better to just eliminate this paragraph (sorry) and change the aftermath section to say something like "Seeking to reduce bureaucracy, lower-level party officials consolidated the functions of smaller organisations (known as party cells) into larger local and municipal districts." You could then provide some of the additional background in an explanatory note, which would then at least be adjacent to the relevant content. This may not be strictly speaking necessary for GA purposes, but I think it would be helpful nonetheless.
 * Eliminated. I'd like to think about the proposed note a bit. As you pointed out, the structure is not really relevant for understanding of the post-congress events. It is not relevant for understanding of the events at the congress either, so I'd like to think some more if it would be better off as a future addition to the League of Communists of Yugoslavia article or here or nowhere really.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair - there isn't really any background needed to understand the sentence as revised. The League's article would be a logical place to put it, although I'm not sure what section it would belong in. In any event, that's an issue for another day. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There, the central committee instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress. - Any specifics? A reader might be interested in the particular policies reversed. (Of course, don't worry if the sources don't say.)
 * The sources are vague on this - probably because the declared objectives changed from time to time. Ramet notes that the main reversals appeared to be the decision to retain the central role of the SKJ in the country and to abandon the policy of "withering of the state" (state apparatus was expected to "wither" away as redundant as the ideal communist society is achieved). Ramet also notes that the group advocating slower pace of reforms (those not reversed, presumably) prevailed for the time being.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You say in the lead that "The congress...discussed the nature of Yugoslav federalism." The body suggests that this discussion arose afterwards. Was this issue discussed during the congress itself? If so, you might want to add it to the "decisions" section.
 * No, it was not formally discussed since it was not for the SKJ to discuss (even though the same people leading the SKJ would decide on the constitution in a different role). The lede was incorrectly summarized in this respect, so I changed it and added clarification in the aftermath regarding the nature of the main gripe for party leadership (Kardelj as he was mostly the principal author of all subsequent constitutional amendments).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. I really appreciate your pointers because I believe the article quality will greatly improve through this process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I think we pretty much have all necessary content included now. Once a few issues with the prose are resolved, we'll be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, that's only one comment. I'll run through the references and give the article another thorough read-through, which should enable me to promote the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC) While I certainly hope you implement these suggestions, the truth of the matter is that the article meets the GA criteria as-is. I thus am content to pass the article at this time, for the reasons elucidated below. Your impressive work on this article is to be commended, and I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentence beginning The most significant turnaround was in relation to the proclaimed... - the wording here is a bit confusing: it's not immediately clear what change actually occurred. Might I suggest something along the lines of "Most significantly, the committee began to backtrack on the congress's plans for a reduction in the SKJ's role in government and for a gradual "withering of the state". Furthermore..." (That sentence might be a bit unwieldy, so by all means feel free to adapt it as you like.)
 * Yes, that sounds better. Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...the role of constituent republics and status of various peoples in Yugoslavia. The page you cite doesn't seem to discuss this: it looks like the section on federalism starts on page 140. While you're at it, you might consider elaborating on the nature of the debate, i.e. trying to reconcile a desire for increased national unity with a need for equality among the republics/ethnic groups.
 * Fixed cite page number. I added a couple of sentences as suggested. Could you take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The congress adopted two resolutions – one on the tasks and the role of the SKJ and another on endorsing all reports submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission. I'm not sure if we really need to know about the second resolution: it doesn't look like it had any lasting significance, being more procedural than anything else. What do your sources say about the first resolution? I presume it endorsed the ideals that you discussed in the first paragraph of the "decisions" section (e.g. director into educator; minimizing bureaucracy), but if the sources don't mention it we of course can't include it. But if the sources permit it, it would be useful to clarify what precisely this resolution involves.
 * I looked for anything on the contents of the resolution and found McClellan's chapter in Vucinich. While he does not say anything directly like "resolution to do X and Y", he does specify several decisions as well as reasoning behind some of them. I added that information to appropriate places in the prose and then realised that if there are two resolutions - one procedural (approving reports, electing officials etc) and another substantive, the latter must include all other decisions explicity or by reference. Sadly, there seems to be no source to confirm this. However, I then realised that if the entire sentence mentioning the two resolutions is removed entirely - nothing is lost in terms of understanding of the topic... so I removed it as redundant. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're right: all the decisions must have been included in one of the resolutions. I agree that no content is lost by removing the sentence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The congress approved workers' self-management and the change of policy led to a wider discussion about the nature of Yugoslav federalism... - this seems to suggest that workers' self-management specifically led to the discussion on federalism. Is that what you meant? By the way, you might consider adding a bit more to the lead (e.g. on reducing bureaucracy and disapproving of religious activities) in light of the substantial expansions to the body of the article.
 * Tried to clarify the sentence. I have added a couple of sentences to the lede on the suggested issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentence beginning By introducing workers' councils in late 1949... - This is a long sentence, and it might be more readable if you split it into two.
 * Split in three for good measure. Hope this is clearer now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...although it was explicitly noted that the autonomy would allow them full independence - do you mean that the autonomy would not allow them full independence? If you do mean "would allow", you might say something like "although it was promised..."
 * Sorry, I accidentally left not out. Added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * instructed the party members to control the councils...difficult to replace managers. It's not really clear who these councils and managers are. Could you clarify?
 * That's workers' councils and managers of the companies where those workers' councils were set up. I added "workers'" to "councils" and tried to give better indication what is meant by "managers". Could you please take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The SKJ deemed the national question solved and did not address the inter-republican relations as the national question or a potential point of contention. The wording here is a bit off - I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. I think something just needs to be reworded.
 * I had another go at it. Basically, the SKJ deemed the national question dominating pre-war Yugoslav internal politics solved in 1945 and the congress therefore only discussed the intra-national relations in terms of increasing Yugoslav unity through the idea of different national cultures combining to create a Yugoslav culture. Unlike in the pre-war context, this was expected to happen without any pressure from the authorities and without resistance - as it was assumed that the national question of defining/developing/preserving/etc national identities was a non-issue anymore.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably should clarify once what the "basic party organisations" are, for instance by adding "local-level" to On the other hand, the basic party organisations.... In the lead, where technical wording is discouraged, you might just write "local party organisations".
 * Good idea. Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like some of the sentences in the lead are a bit out of order. For instance, However, some of the sixth congress's adopted resolutions were reversed when relations with the Soviet Union were normalised is followed immediately by The congress approved workers' self-management.... Jumping back and forth between the congress's actions and the aftermath probably could confuse the reader. Perhaps you could just go through and make sure that each sentence in the lead is in the same order as its corresponding section in the body?
 * Sentence beginning The congress approved workers' self-management... - this is a long sentence, and it probably ought to be broken up. You might send the part about workers' self-management up to the previous paragraph (which would help deal with the issue above) while keeping the rest of it where it is.
 * This is definitely not a GA issue, but it might improve the quality of the prose. In the third paragraph of the lead, there are six consecutive sentences starting with the word "the". You might consider rewording a few of the sentences to start with a different word, although that is of course much more of a matter for FA.
 * Done all three of the above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...by keeping Yugoslavia neutral in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. - the cite should be to page 140, I believe.
 * Actually, the paragraph containing the reference is broken between pages 139 and 140, so I tweaked the cite accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment, this article meets the GA criteria.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The prose is in my view sufficient to meet the criterion: I think a reasonable reader would have little trouble understanding what the article is driving at. There certainly are still some wrinkles to iron out, and (as is the case with most articles) a thorough copy-edit from WP:GOCE/REQ might be beneficial in improving the prose's quality.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The sources are clearly reliable books and journal articles. Inline citations are abundant, and a spot-check of the accessible sources shows that the article accurately reflects the cited content.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article addresses most everything discussed in the sources, and so it easily passes the rather loose "broadness" criterion.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All pictures are free-use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All pictures are free-use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking time to review this article and for the comments and pointers highlighting problems. I believe the article has been improved considerably as a result of this process. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)