Talk:Nikita Zotov/GA1

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

Hello, I am going to review this. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for such a speedy review; I really didn't expect one so quickly. I'll do my best to explain all the points brought up.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've made a few adjustments of grammar in the text and converted the Moscovite empire into the Russian in Peter's later life, as I understand that the Russians didn't like to be seen as mere Moscovites and Peter styled himself as Emperor of All-Russia; I hope you go along with this. There are only a few small points I would like to have clarified before passing this as GA:
 * That makes sense; thank you. NW ( Talk ) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would propose that you combine the two footnotes at the start into a single one, as they treat of the same problem.
 * Good call. Change made. NW ( Talk ) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally I have no isssues with the sources at all, just re. his never learning mathematics and to write well I am very sceptical: 1. Mathematics is based on a book from 1907, it seems a general overview of world history; well, I don't know if we can take it seriously, as it is clear that Peter was quite good at math-related subjects: vide his ballistics and artillery knowledge. I would propose simply to leave that point out. 2. Writing: I know such things are said, but again I have seen his handwriting in facsimile, and apart from that, he wrote so many well-written letters in his later life! The writing point is neither mentioned in the main body of text nor is there a source given, so again: simply leave it out...We should not leave the impression that Peter was a sort of analphabet, should we!
 * Well, here I would have to disagree. As for mathematics, I do know of his sieges and the Azov campaigns, for example, but I think the Williams source, which despite its age and scope, is still quite reliable. However, I could have sworn that it was also backed up by Robert K. Massie, but when I jumped to the citation that is most closest to the mathematics claim, I could not find it. However, I am rereading the book over the next month; if I don't find it, I shall remove the statement. NW ( Talk ) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding writing, here is a quote from page 71 of the edition of Robert K. Massie that I have in the bibliography: "He dealt with meadows and rivers and forests rather than classrooms; with muskets and cannon rather than paper and pens. He read few books. His handwriting, spelling and grammar never advanced beyond the abominable level of early childhood." I think that noting this is quite important, unless you have a third party source to the contrary? (I am impressed, however, that you have seen facsimiles of Peter's letters; where was this?) NW ( Talk ) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards the Streltsy section, I would propose to focuse on Zotov's participation instead of retelling the later half of the story--what the tortured did say or didn't say and Sophia's non-envolvement. Another possibility would be to retell the whole story--but there is the link to the relevant article, so people can look it up.
 * The problem is, Zotov didn't really do much in the torture; he just kind of led a team of torturers, just like many of Peter's friends. I didn't want to just abruptly end the paragraph and have it very short, so I added a few sentences regarding what happened to the Streltsy in general. What would you recommend? NW ( Talk ) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zotov's wife/widow, if she was fifty years younger when he was 83 or so she cannot have been 60 when she died only 8 years after she would have been about 30something--little proplem?
 * I don't have access to Henri Troyat's book now, but I don't remember that being in there. I have removed it. NW ( Talk ) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zotov's son (the one mentioned in the main text) seems to have been an adult in Peter's reign--so he cannot be the son mentioned in the lead. Contradiction, or had he two sons?
 * Addressed with a note that he was born before Zotov's marriage. NW ( Talk )


 * "Several" historians--is this what Hughes says himself or is he one among several? In that case it would be better to mention him: Hughes says so and so...according to WP:Weasel.
 * Done.

Well, I think these are not major problems, and I am happy to help anyway I can, when you have made up your mind about the proposals I have made. I will put this article on hold in the meantime. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

O.k., I have merged the Streltsy paragraph with the preceding one, with a new title "Other activities"; I hpope this is o.k. for you. I also added that, from 1701, Zotov had an important serious post. I found this fact in a German two-volume academic biography of Peter I, a very thorough work based on original sources. My problem is, I've never worked so far with this kind of cite template, so I could only format the footnotes in the more primitive system. In the bibliography I managed to format it correctly. Perhaps you could format the footnotes #28 and #36 correctly? GA should be consistent in formatting and now I have contributed to the trouble. I also added that Vinius was a fellow Jolly Company member acc. to Massie p. 113 (same Ballantine ed. you have).

As regards his writing or math abilities I will not quibble over that, although personally I think Massie is quite off the mark here: Peter did read books when he was an adult, even in German! He wrote lots of letters in refined handwriting. His hand changed over the years: I have a book with many pictures where one can see the difference in two samples, the latter one a remark by Peter on the page of the new Russsian alphabet. My books on Peter are all in German, sadly, except for Massie. I remember some TV documentary where they showed his handwriting from a museum in Amsterdam! -- Very beautiful.

If you could format footnotes #28 and #36, then I think this could be a GA... Buchraeumer (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works, and the new information is very helpful. I have reformatted it into the system per your request.
 * And might you have any sources that relate to the German reading and writing? That sounds very intriguing, and it would be nice if we could put a contradicting source for Massie if you feel that he is wrong here. NW ( Talk ) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had overlooked so far that Zotov was a count. It is clear Peter made him one later in life. Does Hughes say when that was or that Zotov was raised? If yes it should be mentioned in the lead, or at least later in the text.
 * It is a bit hopeless to find a direct statement that Peter did write well (in the sense one would need it for WP). But I recalled a letter from Peter I to Zotov from February, 1709:
 * "'The book about fortification which you have translated, has been read by us. The conversations are translated very well and clearly. However, how to teach the construction of fortifications is translated very obscurely and unintelligibly, also, the measurements of the table are not given; we have pasted in the respective page in a corrected version. The old, cut out version, we also send you, so you can see for yourself what was wrong and unintelligible. As concerns the book which you are now translating, you must strive to translate more understandably, especially those parts which explain how to do it. And one should not stick word for word to the text while translating, but express the content, after having understood it, in one's own language in such a way that it is best understood.'"


 * Sorry for the language, but I didn't translate it true to the letter's maxim, but as faithfully as I could. It is from


 * Valentin Gitermann: Geschichte Russlands, Zürich: Büchergilde Gutenberg 1945, vol.II, p. 421. The author gives Soloviev, vol. IV, p. 16, as his source.


 * I am sceptical if there is an English translation of the book out there. I googled a bit for Gitermann, and I understand he was a well-respected historian in Switzerland. This work is a three-volume narrative history of Russia with many documents.


 * Gitermann gives the letter under the rubric: "Peter the Great corrects translations of foreign books" in a huge appendix with original documents. As he himself categorizes it as such, and it is clear from the letter that Zotov translated books, I think we could say in the article that Zotov did so (without doing OR or something the like). Perhaps we could give the quotation or part of it to illustrate the relationship of the Tsar and his ex-tutor. If you think it is worthwhile just try. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hughes says that Zotov was made a count sometime from 1710 to 1711, and I had included that before. However, I was was unsure of where to include that little piece of information. I think I will add it to the "Other activities section", as we have similar information there now.
 * Oooh, and this information looks really good. This is how I managed to include it. What do you think? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Final review:
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

O.k.! Then I shall pass this to good article! It was nice to learn more about Nikita Zotov, I didn't know that Menshikov was a bit afraid of him! As I understand WP:LEAD, it is possible to include titles or posts and similar details without repeating it in the article. This is unnecessary in this instance, but in case you have a similar problem again, perhaps. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this detailed review; I really enjoyed working with someone who is so familiar with Russian history. I was thinking about maybe working on another article on Russian history from this time period at a later point; perhaps we could collaborate? In any case, good luck, and happy editing, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)