User talk:Adrainveidt/sandbox

Background Paragraph 5 Not only was the collectivization meant to fund industrialization, but it was also a way for the Bolsheviks to systematically attack the Kulaks and peasants in general. Stalin was incredibly suspicious of the peasants, he viewed them as a major threat to socialism. Stalin’s use of collectivization served to not only address the grain shortages but his greater concern of control over the peasants.

Crisis of 1928 Paragraph 1 Stalin claimed the grain had been produced but was being hoarded by "kulaks." When in reality the farmers were holding on to their grain because the prices were below market price. Stalin tried to appear as being on the side of the peasants, but it did not help, the peasants as whole started to resent the grain seizures. The peasants did everything they could to protest.

Peasant Resistance Paragraph 2 The peasants argued with the collectors they wrote letters to their children in the military and they even sowed less grain. The party officials tried to promise the peasants tractors and tax breaks if they would conform to the collective farm model but the government was unable to meet the promises made by party officials.

Minka's Peer Review
This article is very interesting as it discusses Collectivization and Stalin, but I will admit that it is hard to decipher where a subject starts and where the subject ends. There is also not a lot of information per paragraph and it therefore, does not give a lot of information about the said topic. The subjects titles are also not in bold lettering making it hard for people to decipher the different paragraphs. The article could definitely be longer considering that there is a lot of information out there that could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinkaO (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Buster Husa's Peer Review
Hello, Here are a few things I noticed while reading through some of your edits. Both Paragraphs one and two both need a cited source as well as more information. The page you have chosen to edit already has a substantial amount of information on it. I have clicked on some of the sources cited and find them very strong. It might be helpful to find a few stronger sources for some of the topics already covered as well as your own original ideas.

This link will take you to some great and well-cited articles on the grain issue and why Stalin starved Ukraine. This area lacked a sufficient citation in the article itself and could use some more definition. http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/hdocuments.htm#25

In the Section Titled: Decollectivization under German occupation We get a brief introduction to Alfred Rosenberg and it tells us about some poster he had made to show an end to Colectovist farming under German-occupied Russia. It would be good to add a link to these posters or at least a photo of one added to the page.

Other then that I believe that little things can be added to this article has a whole. The final paragraph about de-collectivization should also have some information about the struggle to re-collectivize the areas after the war. It could also have a link to go to the page with information already pertaining to this if it exists.

RubeusTheHagrid (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

15FEB2019 Peer Review
After having viewed the original article, which is fairly lengthy, I can see why you have formatted your draft the way in which you did. It seems that you are intending to “add to” those particular sections. Which is fine, and I think the information you are intending to add is very good, and will further improve the current article. Keeping in mind that the chosen article is already fairly lengthy and detailed, the only major suggestions that I can make is to add more citations, especially to paragraphs one and two. Additionally, I would add links to specific wikipedia pages where appropriate. Such as in paragraph five, when you wrote “but it was also a way for the Bolsheviks to systematically attack the Kulaks and peasants in general”, within that sentence I would highlight and add a link for “Bolsheviks” and “Kulaks”.

I think the draft looks good so far, and I look forward to reading the article when your information is added! Good work! - Kdillinger20 (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mandy's review
I think you are on a great start to the article. I think that the article is well written but could use some more details as it is a bit on the short side. I feel that it is a great start and has the potential to be a wonderful article. I believe with a few more sources and sentences or paragraphs this will make it even better Mlrich13 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Power's Peer Review 15 Feb19
I think that development of structure will be very important to polishing this article, however the content in the article is well thought out and useful to describing the topic in question. Adding information regarding re-collectivization and the struggles involved will be key to also tying in all the information before the final section. Overall the draft of this article does need some work, however by continuing to add sources and bulk up the information provided will tie everything together in this article. Adding more citations to the article will also help increase the credibility of the information while also contributing to the neutral stance of the article. I noticed that the first citation in the article is missing the date and time accessed, this is a small fix that is important to citing the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powers865 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Leighs Peer Review
I think this is a great beginning to an article and as it is continued and polished will become great! I think that there is a need for more citations throughout but especially in the Crisis of 1028 and the Peasant Resistance. With those citations I think the article just needs some more structure to help the reader along and some more content to bridge gaps and keep one engaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh.pfeiffer (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dr. B adds his two cents
Hi guys, in addition to the excellent comments here, I wanted to remind you to avoid using other encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica among your sources. The goal here is to add scholarly secondary sources like books or journal articles and not content from other encyclopedias. Just FYI. 67.128.127.226 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)bjberesf

Charmayne's Peer Review
The article sections have some great opening paragraphs that are clear and free of bias. I think once you add more information and sources the article will come together very nicely. For the Crisis of 1928 even though the section is in it's early stages I feel that once you expand on the information provided and include some images from the crisis your article will stand out more. The article is short, but I think with some more editing and elaborating on facts you won't need a super long article to get your point across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chargrad2020 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)