User:GRuban/DYK Lev Gatovsky

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lev_Gatovsky

I'm sorry; I think out of the I've rejected very few articles for DYK for style issues, because DYK isn't supposed to be WP:GA, a starter article is supposed to be fine. But this is simply not WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I'm sorry, we shouldn't link to this on our front page without basically a complete rewrite. The article exists in 4 other languages, so possibly we should have an article about this person ... but not this article.
 * Most important is that much of the body of the article is basically incomprehensible; examples below but it's throughout. I mean, that certainly reflects Soviet economic policy, but surely we shouldn't follow their example in writing our encyclopedia articles!
 * Why emphasize Jewish in the first sentence? I mean, I know why, being Jewish in the Soviet Union was a big deal. But we need to say that, and probably how it affected him specifically, otherwise given the context it's basically an ethnic slur.
 * Misspellings or archaisms: theorical, wether, geralization. Not a big deal in itself, but it implies the article was written carelessly, written by computer translation, or scanning, or all of the above. Note the last word in "For the period before I929" - yes, that's a capital I there, not a 1. I strongly suspect that's a scanning error. Why are we scanning, rather than summarizing?
 * Third sentence: "During World War II, he and other 26 members of the institute volunteered in the 21st Infantry Division. [5]" This is his early life? If he was born in 1903, he was what, nearly 40? What institute? The Institute of Economics? The only previous sentence about any Institute says he became its Corresponding Member in 1965, was he a member during WWII? Shouldn't we say that? In fact we don't say anything else about his life besides his writing in the whole article. Again, this is a DYK not a GA, but still.
 * Half the article is big block quotes. I count 48 lines of quotations, and 55 lines not of quotations. (This differs based on how wide you set your screen of course, but the relative count should apply.) They're not even credited: who says each block of text? Why does their opinion on Gatovsky matter? "According to Miller" - who's Miller, and why should we care? Can't we summarize the opinions of multiple critics, not just one, in our own words, naming the critics and why their opinions matter, and much, much briefer?
 * Even more quotes, this time short, possibly from Gatovsky, though even this is less clear: "regularities" - what does that mean? Although considered to be a formal study in dialectical logic, it considers "the proletariat as the chief productive force and exerciser of class hegemony". What does any of that mean? What is "considered to be a formal study in dialectical logic"? Gatovsky's pamphlet? He was a logician now, not an economist?
 * "To him, the main concern of the Soviet economists of the early thirties was the difficulty for establishing a common framework that reconciliates Soviet political economy theory with the framing of the economic policy, which continued to increase in complexity. In this scenario Gatovsky represent the approach from the logical side." What does any of that mean? Is our article trying to say that the Soviets said one thing and did another? If so, great, there were certainly plenty of examples - but we're not saying that in any language I can read.
 * Belgium section, we devote nine paragraphs about a single week of lectures. Why so much about so little?
 * In fact, the whole Lectures section - sure, I guess it was important that he was one of the rare scientists/academics allowed out of the country, but we don't say that.