Talk:Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962/GA1

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

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 04:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll read over this tonight and leave preliminary comments – substantive review to follow, hopefully by tomorrow or Monday at the latest. Also, this is my first GAN (eek), so I'll definitely need a second (and possibly third) set of eyeballs to make sure I don't do something ridiculous. -- Accedie talk to me  04:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary comments:


 * I copyedited for consistency w/r/t "Five(-)Year Plan" and "workers(') wages" (though those minor tics probably bother only me). Might have missed a few instances of both, though.
 * Would be nice to have a picture in the lede. I'll look for something appropriately propagandistic on Commons. And maybe another pic in-body, in addition to Stakhanov (though he is pretty cool!).
 * with a strong emphasis placed upon overfulfilling stated targets and producing as much as achieved in as short a space of time as possible – awkward… not sure what "producing as much as achieved" means
 * It's obviously hard to avoid in an article like this, but there a few too many uses of "worker/s" – would read more smoothly with a bit of pruning.
 * The background section is too bulky; should probably be split into descriptive background of the old system and problems/inefficiencies caused by it.
 * Brief explanation of what Pravda is for the non-Soviets among us would be nice :)
 * Too much reliance on Filtzer and Fearn. Cursory Googling suggests other possible sources, and I might have a few lying around in ye olde home library...

Other than those minor points, looks clear, concise, and well-crafted. Good job, authors! - Accedie talk to me  05:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for carrying out this review and thanks for your helpful copy edits.
 * I've looked for a nice picture for the lede, but I haven't found anything to do with the wage reform or even the 6th five year plan. I'm not too keen on putting anything in for purely decorative purposes, I think it needs to be something that's specifically to do with this event. If you can find anything appropriate it would be really cool.
 * The "achieved" thing was a typo so it didn't make any sense - I've removed it.
 * I've removed a few uses of 'workers' but left a lot in as I want the article to read naturally, so where anything else would sound silly I've stuck with the original wording.
 * I've split the background as you suggest. I've added a quick explanatory sentence for Pravda.
 * I'm conscious that there definitely is a lot of reliance on those two sources, I'm in the process of searching for more too and if you could find any I could use I'd really appreciate it, I've got my mind on eventually taking this article to FAC when it's ready, and therefore I'm loathe to use anything that would be seen as less than a rock solid reliable source.
 * Thanks for carrying out this review! I look forward to hearing what else you can suggest for improving the article. cya! Coolug (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work on this article :)
 * RE: pics, how about this one from the Russian Wikipedia entry on the Semiletka (Seven-Year Plan) of '59-'65? It's a commemorative stamp from '59, and even without being able to read the text ("the chemical industry – 100% in 1958, 300% in 1965") I think it gets the point across. Plus, it's all neat and constructivist! -- Accedie talk to me  23:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for finding that picture, I've stuck it on the lede. I think it makes the article look a lot prettier :) Coolug (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously not a historian, but I'd also be a bit concerned about over-reliance on a single book as a source. Did you try chasing up any of the original references from the book itself?  I'm guessing some of them would be unobtainable out-of-print Russian-language manuscripts, but the book must cite some academic papers too, right?  If you need any books/papers from the uni library, I can help out. Papa November (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only english language stuff cited in the references to the Filtzer piece are: Leonard Joel Kirsch, Soviet Wages: Changes in Structure and Administration, (Cambridge, Mass., 1972). and Alec Nove, 'Wages in the Soviet Union: A Comment on Recently Published Statistics', British Journal of Industrial Relations, July 1966. The Nove one appears to be googlable but is only available to those with an account. If you could nab a copy and e-mail it to the usual address I'd appreciate it. cya Coolug (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick look on Google Scholar suggests that Olef Hoeffding has written several papers on the subject. Might be worth following this up.  Also, I tracked down the published version of Ref. 16.  Papa November (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey. I've added some more stuff over today. I've also found some other stuff that I'll put up soon enough once I've been able to read through them. A lot of stuff though that sounds like it might be useful in fact has nothing to do with this wage reform, for example some stuff by Hoeffding. However, I've not looked through all his stuff yet so there may well be some gems out there. Coolug (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Coolug,

Thanks for your diligence and cooperation! Just one more suggestion to make before I review this thing to death :) – this may not be absolutely crucial now, but if your intention is to take this article all the way to FA, I recommend you split your references section into References with all works cited and Notes that indicate page numbers (like this). As for the volume of your references... once upon a time, I wrote academic papers on Slavic stuff for a living, so I can sympathize with the very real problem of having exactly one authority on obscure (and not-so-obscure) subjects.  Quality over quantity, imho.  Let me know when you've made your final additions and are happy with the end product, and I'll close this review for good.  (Get it? Pun. Heh.) -- Accedie talk to me  12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the references so they appear as you suggest. I'm pretty happy with the article as it is at the moment, so go ahead with the review when you have the opportunity. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)