User talk:HR Cat/Shared Article/sandbox

ADD to "Important groups" SECTION "The Union of Soviet Writers"

Source: John E. Bowlt, ed., Russian Art of the Avant-garde: theory and criticism, 1902-1934 (New York: Viking Press, 1976), pp. 288-290.

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/writers-congress/

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/writers-congress/writers-congress-texts/reconstruction-of-literary-and-artistic-organizations/ HR Cat (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Athena, you can add this to the article - "Socialist realism" in Polish literature I looked at this because this might give us and idea of how to write socialist realism based on literature. Not sure if yo would want to choose literature, movies or music.

There are many articles on Russian famine. There are 3 articles written for a specific time period, none of which are under Stalin. Maybe we should write about famine under the 5-year-plan.

Zachary Vinson's Peer Review
I think your article has some very good substance to it, and has the potential to be a really solid article when finished. I like that you have detailed sections that indicate what groups and subjects were touched by Socialist Realism at the time, and can see where you guys are going with the article by covering subsections of different cultural aspects that felt the influence of Socialist Realism, such as literature, art and motion pictures. Your tone seems very neutral when discussing the detailed information. The sources used in the article appear to be reliable and contain true information. However, the lack of sources used in the article is something that could be greatly improved. I feel like you guys could develop the article by adding a few more sources, and with these sources will come solid information you can use to fill out the rest of your sections. The way you have structured the subsections seems like you guys have quite a bit of information to fill, especially in the "Movies" section. More sources will help achieve this and add more merit to your information. The lead tab is also quite short, which does not provide enough information to what the article is all about. Sure you guys have the most important information which is the definition of Socialist Realism, but there is not enough substance in that area to get readers engaged. The lack of a lead section also disrupts the flow of the article. Overall, I think you guys have did a great job gathering the information presented, and I like where you are going with the structure of it. This article really has the potential to be a great topic on Wikipedia, and with a little more information and sources, I think you guys would build something really informative. Zachary Vinson (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrew's Peer Review
This is a good start on a subject as nuanced as Socialist Realism. However, there are a few things that need to be added for this article to work better for the average Wikipedia viewer. I would say briefly these things are, adding a definition of the term from an academic source, explaining the history of the term so as to give the reader a sense of the difficulties encountered with this concept, and finally why the idea was discarded. Additionally, I would suggest that more be added to the article in terms of scope, such as how it affected popular culture. Did people become bored with it, angry with it, etc.

There is also a matter of Soviet censorship to consider. This aspect has also been left out of the article. Perhaps more discussion about the censorship boards demanding various levels of Socialist Realism from films and books at different times, and why? The enforcement of Socialist Realism was a problem for many writers and film producers, and so maybe an explanation about how this worked would also help people understand that Socialist Realism was an enforced doctrine, and part of the government stranglehold on popular culture. The good thing is that this article touches on this, in part, with it’s mention of the Union of Soviet Writers, but this was a serious part of the Socialist Realist experience and should have more space throughout the article because it affected all forms of art, to include film.

What is included in this article is good but it needs more for for a subject this big. This article also needs more sources. Examples of these would include actual paintings, links to films, translated passages from Socialist Realist books, anything to give people an example of what this was like in practice would be beneficial to the article. Also, defining the term as to a greater degree than is presented here would help the article, since the concept itself isn’t highlighted enough. I would also discuss the government censorship more. Finally, giving examples would be helpful too. If some of these things are done then the article will be much better, and more likely to give readers a full view of the subject of Socialist Realism.--Andrew Halford (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Juan's Peer Review
According to "Evaluating Wikipedia" there are five elements to quality articles; they are, a concise leading overview, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources. The following constructive peer review will adhere to parameters established by the five elements. Social Realism is a content-rich topic, and worthy of exploration and discussion; that said, defining Social Realism, while beneficial, is not a sufficient leading section. Providing more information within the leading section would allow readers to obtain a general understanding of concepts within the article; for example, the article Winter War provides general knowledge in the leading section, in which the authors elaborate in greater detail under subsequent headings. While a leading section is absent, the article does possess a clear structure. "Important Groups" and "Movies" are excellent headings that enhance the article's fluidity. Some suggestive headings may include Origins, Literature, and Socio-cultural Environment of the Time. Under these examples heading, the authors would gain the opportunity to discuss Stalin's involvement (i.e., approval, disapproval, etc...), or even the purpose of Social Realist content.

Before writing additional content, the authors should consider citing current content. Typically, in scholarly writing the purpose is to provide support, or persuade, the readers to agree with an argument or thesis; however, this is not the case with Wikipedia. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (i.e., no original work), the authors should consider adding more sources. While paragraphs 1,2,3,4, and 6 do not appear to be original content, the question remains, where was the information obtained.

On a separate note, the article Socialist Realism is effectively written with a neutral tone; maybe the only concession would be the sentence "One of the most famous authors." However, the sentence is not a critical error, merely a suggestion for reexamination. Finnally, because the article is incomplete, it does not fulfill the "balanced coverage" element. If the outline structure currently provided is a precursor of what is to come, then this is also not a critical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanAragon96 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Andy's peer review
The group's edits to this article stay on topic and cover important parts of Socialist Realism. 2 sections were added that I think are important that did not appear in the original article. Movies and the Union of Soviet writers played a very important part in Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union.

I think these two sections are lacking content and do need some additions.

Under the section "The Union of Soviet Writers", I have a few suggestions to collect grammar. In this sentence " Fadeyev was a close person friend of Stalin and called Stalin...", it should say "...close personal friend...". The other issue I saw was in the sentence "It was praised by the Soviet Union and the patriotism show by the group of men." The second part is unclear. It says The book was praised by the patriotism show by the group of men. Is that saying that "the patriotism show by the group of men" is an organization that praised it? Or do you mean that it was praised because of the patriotism that the group of men showed? I think that sentence needs rephrasing. Also this section needs citation. Only one sentence is cited. Reference 2 doesn't list the name of the reference in the list.

Under the section "Movies", I also have a few suggestions. I think the first sentence in there needs some revising and the section needs some additions. In this sentence, "The Cinema of the Soviet Union had a profound impact on how citizens viewed all aspects of daily life from the time the cinema appeared continuing into the "Great War" and into today." I think saying "into the Great war and into today" disrupts the flow of the sentence and makes it sound like a run-on sentence. I think that it could be reworded to say something such as "...from the time the cinema appearing continuing [through] the Great war and into [present day]." It doesn't have to read exactly like that, just a suggestion. I think helpful additions to this section would include: What time did Cinema appear in the Soviet Union, examples of popular and artistic movies and the impact of movies. Also, this section needs to be cited.

Under the AKhRR section examples of works of arts by these artists and names of artist would be a great addition. The Whole section is not cited.

Under the easel painter, “as per their name” in the first sentence isn’t needed. Their name doesn’t indicate that they work as easel painters. Also, did the OSt have any accomplishments before they broke up? Any famous pieces of work? And this section is not cited.

I think this is a great start and just needs to more content and polishing. I think the most important thing for this article is to add depth to each section. They are basic and need more content explaining their importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asclements88 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Charmayne's Peer Review
I think the article has a great foundation so far when it comes to Socialist Realism, but I think the sections could be expanded a bit more. Also, the more sources the better! Wiki is all about credibility, and making sure that there are a sufficient amount of sources to back up the information in your article will help with the rating. Also, adding visuals of cover art could boost your Movies section very well. Try to expand a little more on Socialist Realism films. There is a link in module Three that could help if you are looking for a place to start. Otherwise this is a great start to your Wiki project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chargrad2020 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mackinley's Peer Review
First, I think the structure of the article should be changed around. The first change that I would make would be creating headers that separate the subcategories of information. For example, the definition and history of Socialist Realism should be in separate sections. Possibly end the definition at the end of the first paragraph and move onto history in the second. Second, I would add some citations to the second and third sections of the article. Considering that the bottom two sections have a total of one citation, either some content should be deleted or cited. Another comment is regarding the overall topic. Since the topic expands from the late 1910s until the 1980s, there should be some information added for each era. Since Socialist Realism became far more noticeable and advertised during the years of Stalin, his influence should be mentioned. Also, a brief addition of content regarding the topic in the post-Stalin years may be of benefit. I recommend increasing the amount of content, sources, and would possibly add some images to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr917 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)