User:Sigridlokensgard/Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow/Gsewell1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sigridlokensgard


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sigridlokensgard/Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content:

In general, I think the content is up-to-date and relevant. The article will be much more complete with the suggested additions. Most of my comments focus on sourcing and developing/clarifying some of the claims made in the subsections.

The "Reception" section provides important historical and political context about Radishchev's book. Perhaps the author could cite specific Soviet critics/Cold War-era critics – not all of them, of course, just some to help readers begin their research process.

The "Philosophy" section could clarify the relationship between Radishchev's studies that "exposed him to the French Enlightenment" and the "argument for individual rights based on natural law" in Journey. In other words, how are the ideals of the French Enlightenment present in Radishchev's book? I think the link could be made a little more explicit. Perhaps the text could also expand on the discussion of reform in the "Project for the Future" sections of Journey. What does Radishchev claim in this section? How are these conclusions manifested in the text?

I think the statements made in the "Literary Influence" section could be further developed. For example, the author writes that the book "is notable for its multiple narration styles." How would you describe these narration styles? I do not think that it is necessary to go into great detail, but providing an overview of the narration techniques could be useful. Was Radishchev's style initially "unpopular" among the critics, the reading public, or subsections within these categories?

Tone:

I think that the tone is neutral throughout and appropriate to the Wikipedia genre.

Organization:

The additions are well-organized, but I think that the statements will seem more connected when they are developed. The "Literary Influence" section in particular seems a bit disjointed. I appreciate the concision, but I think that a bit more information on each of the statements in this section would be beneficial. I've suggested some ideas in the content review above.

Sources and References:

I think that some of the statements made in the "Reception," "Philosophy," and "Literary Influence" sections could be supported by sources other than the Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow book, which is currently the only reference listed. Specifically, I would look for alternative sources that contain the the biographical information on Radishchev and the statements about Catherine the Great/Alexander I's reactions to the book. The article could also link to the Wikipedia pages of some of the other texts/authors/historical figures mentioned in the addition (i.e. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Catherine the Great, Alexander Herzen, etcetera). I know that the English scholarship might be limited, but any supplementary stories that can substantiate the statements would be productive.