User talk:WavesOfAmur/Third Kiev Edit

=Evaluations=

6/9/2019 Evaluation by User:BethanyJJohnson

 * Points: 38/40
 * Grade: 95% (Wow I've never given anyone that high a grade on a peer review! This truly is really well-written, though. Mainly I just have a few suggestions on grammar and language. But you've clearly worked really hard on this)

Spelling/Grammar
Nearly meets standard

This is really picky on my part, but the last two sentences of the first paragraph both end with "in Kiev". I'd find a way to change it so it doesn't sound repetitive when read aloud.

"Initially, the handful of demonstrators who came out onto Independence Square were purported to have been students.[5] The "early joiners" were purported to have been students, journalists, and affiliated members of organizations and social movements."- "were purported to have been students" is used twice in a row. Your second sentence seems to repeat the first. I'd get rid of the first sentence all together and stick with just the second.

"The barricades, which were erected after police efforts at dispersing the crowds (followed by subsequent abuse), were initially meant to be symbolic; according to Mie Georgsen and Bjørn Thomassen, the barricades were meant to symbolize a breaking point between the authorities and the protesters, serving as an "act of secession"." This is a really long, rather difficult to follow sentence. Is there a way to break it up? The constant quotations are a bit distracting.

Again, just me being picky, but "Despite the critical acclaim, she also claims that two and a half years later," the word "claim" is used twice in a very short period. It sounds odd, even though the first time it's used as a part of another word.

Language
Nearly meets standard

You've done a great job sounding academic and unbiased, but there's quite a bit in quotations. For example, "This act allowed for the "Ukrainian people" to leave behind their daily lives to enter into a "symbolic space of struggle".[5] Moreover, the symbolism meant that the people were breaking apart from the "previous status quo"," You've directly quoted three sources all within two sentences, and seem to do this throughout the article. Is there a way to replace some of these with your own words?

Organization
Meets standard

Well-organized.

Coding
Meets standard

Seems like it's coded correctly. Could use links with certain things and people, but perhaps there just aren't any pages set up for them.

Validity
Meets standard

Everything reads to be true.

Completion
Meets standard

You've done a thorough job giving a lot of information here.

Relevance
Meets standard

"According to Mikhail Molchanov"- Maybe give a bit of reference as to who this is. Example: "According to Canadian Policy adviser Mikhail Molchanov..."

Same with "Sophie Pinkham notes the term Lumpen", "Moreover, Julia Strasheim cited post-Maidan Civil War as...", and "Oxana Shevel..."

06/10/2018 Evaluation by Joshua Gramley
Kirill! I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get around to reviewing this edit. Before I start, I just wanted to say thanks for your generous, thorough feedback on my work. I really appreciate you catching my silly mistakes--missing out translating part of a sentence, inadvertently claiming Minsk as a state--which, to be honest, given the current sorry state of my brain, I might have easily missed.

Spelling/Grammar needs some work, although my complaints here are ultimately rather minor. Here they are:

1. "The protests were witnessed closely by all of Europe": "witnessed" feels slightly too passive for the "closely" that follows; how would you feel about swapping in a "watched" or "observed"?

2. "...Ukraine's economic link with the EU, while distancing itself away from Russia.": I think the "away" here is redundant; "distancing itself" should suffice.

3. "Yanukovych had rejected to sign the agreement": I would recommend either "had rejected signing" or "had declined to sign." I apologize for not being able to justify this in formal grammatical terms, but for some reason, I have an intuition that "reject" requires a gerund.

4. "According to Molchanov,": you start two consecutive sentences this way; maybe rephrase a little?

5. "Some studies believe": the studies themselves don't believe, yeah? You might want to go with "suggest" instead, since studies can be instrumental to suggestion in a conventional-usage sense. Edit: I see you use this phrasing in the next sentence. Well, I'm sure you can come up with another alternative :)

6. "ie. Russia and the West.": should be, I believe, "i.e.,"

7. "had erupted into violence.": should be simple past tense, "erupted into violence"

8. "the square had become almost an external part of the city": hmm, I think "external" suggests "outside" here; what about trying the slightly more geographically precise (I think!) "sovereign enclave in the city"?

9. "as was wrought on by the authorities": the preposition "on" is extraneous here. If you want to keep this phrasing, I'd go with "oppression, as wrought by the authorities."

10. "extermists" and "neo-nazis": typo here! also, I believe it's capital-N "Nazis."

11. "and a violent state of oppression that Ukraine was facing.": wording is a little vague here. Was the violent oppression perpetrated by the state of Ukraine? If so, you might try "the violent oppression within Ukraine."

12. "achieve class consciousness", most likely a Soviet": comma should go within quotation marks there.

13. "where separatism from Donetsk and Lugansk republics": "from" seems off here. Wouldn't "within" be better? I.e., separatism the sentiment within these regions, which ultimately formed sovereign republics. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something here, in which case, apologies.

14. "attitude towards Russia became much more negative,": would change to "attitudes" or "the national attitude"

15. "By middle of 2016, the positive regard rebound": phrasing is awkward here. Maybe try some other ways of saying this.

16. "even in the Russian-speaking south and east boundaries": Would go with "in the boundary regions" or "at the boundaries," as boundaries themselves are pretty narrow, and not, I think, what you're going for here.

17. "potentially inciting further violence that would be witnessed later in": phrasing is awkward. Maybe try "potentially the cause of further violence which was witnessed later in"

18. " cited post-Maidan Civil War": I would add "the" before "post-Maidan"

19. "wrought on by Maidan," would just go with "brought on by Maidan." "Wrought" is a weird word, the context for its usage feels pretty narrow, and you may not want to use it twice in similar constructions. Also, the whole sentence within which this phrase rests is rather long and slightly vague; you might consider breaking it up, and fine-tuning its specificity.

Language nearly meets standards. As always, your writing is just great, and pitch-perfect regarding encyclopedic tone. Here are some thoughts:

1. "stemmed from "two poles of gravity" which had the same level of "pull": by using quotes here, it feels like maybe you're quoting Yanukovich, in which case, you would probably need to cite right after the direct quote. I totally get what you're doing here, I think--I just expect that in this specific context, it might cause you complication. This comes up again later, with "the heavy-handed and brutal tactics"; who are you quoting? Should this be cited? Elsewhere, I think there are places where you needn't necessarily quote--you could just go with your own paraphrasing. But for Strasheim and Shevel's quotes, I would keep the quotations; they do good work in this section.

2. "according to Mie Georgsen and Bjørn Thomassen": hmm, I'm not sure who these folks are, or what their authority is supposed to be here. What do you think about adding in a professional title as a means of introduction? E.g., "Social scientists Mie Georgsen and..." I think doing so would make this make a little more sense to the average reader. I see this come up elsewhere, too. Perhaps titles aren't necessary--would check the conventions in other Wiki contexts, I guess, but generally, I think for the sake of clarity, they help.

3. There's a little bit of redundancy in phrasing, in certain places...e.g., both "Protest" sections start really similarly, with phrases turning on "initially." You might play with alternatives here.

Organization nearly meets standards. Some thoughts:

1. You mention November 21, 2013 as the date Ukraine "underwent" a series of protests, but it looks like actually, the protests lasted for years. Instead, you might want to rephrase as "beginning in November 2013, Ukraine underwent." Then, I'd follow with more specific dates (if you have them) below, throughout the more detailed timeline. I would want to see dates for Yanukovich's rejection of the EU agreement, the announcement by Azarov, the date of the first demonstrations, etc.

2. "The demonstrations were initially peaceful, but after abuse by authorities, protests had erupted into violence.": this sentence might go better under the next section. Well, or maybe should be merged into the section, as sentence two of that section says roughly the same thing (so, some repetition here).

3. I might play with putting the "Clamor for Pro-EU..." section above, before "Protests," in the "decisions and reasons for conflict" section. I see, though, that the post-Maidan dates might seem pretty awkward here. Maybe you could play with working those into the "Aftermath" section? I.e., integrating the 2014 portions of this section into "decisions and reasons," and 2016 portions into "Aftermath"

Coding meets standards! Might want to hyperlink Putin, though. Same on Donetsk and Lugansk republics, and the Civil War. All of your other links check out (i.e., go to the right spot, are appropriate), and the Wiki formatting looks pristine.

Validity meets standards; just one small point:

1. Not sure if this is the right place for this, but: going back to those "heavy-handed and brutal tactics"...the claim feels a little vague. Can you specify actions the police took? Otherwise, we're left to imagine, and may imagine anything--which seems like it could undermine the validity of the allegation. Edit: I see that you have a section on violence below. I would still say that reading sequentially, most readers will want a little more clarity in the spot I've identified here.

Just a quick point: I really appreciate that you offer diverse perspectives in the violence section. You do a really good job of providing a balanced read on a easily-biased issue.

Completion exceeds standards! Really wonderful work here, Kirill. It's been a joy to read your research this term. I mean that.

Relevance meets standards. The only real discursion I note is your explanation of Lumpenproletariat. I get the context, but unless Pinkham is saying anything about Marxist conceptions of class-consciousness having some relevance to Maidan itself (rather than just a point of reference for the person she seems to be interviewing in the text), I would guess that this is somewhat extraneous to your point.

Citations nearly meets standards. Existing citations are lovely. My only concern are those uncited quotes (detailed above).

Sources meet standards. I've checked out a good five or so, and they all seem to clearly pertain to and support the points you've made in the text. I've read through the rest, and they all look relevant. Pretty much all of them seem to be academic. They are diverse. You have twenty. At the risk of regretting saying so here: I think you're in good shape.

References nearly meets standards, I think. Source 7 seems a little odd, with the "Anonymous Author." Unless it is deliberately the case that the author is anonymous, I would probably leave the author section blank (review APA reference formatting for no author on this one). Also, when I try to check out the source, it takes me to a ProQuest sign in page; not sure if there's some way to circumvent that (i.e., through a DOI or permalink), but if there is, I might recommend it.

Also, I notice that your date formats vary a bit; sometimes it's numerals, and sometimes, the months are spelled out. Personally, I'd probably want to choose something consistent. Then again, for all I know, I personally have the same variation going on back on my draft right now.

Ok--that's all I've got for now! If you have any questions, or want a second look, you can email me through D2L, or at "joshua.gramley@gmail.com." Again, lovely work, and here's hoping you contribute to the Kiev page! By the by, it would be interesting to explore (later) how Maidan might have affected non-participant Kiev, either in terms of the economy, society, culture, or whatever else. Just a thought, in case you want to continue the project! Joshua Gramley (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

6/13/19 Evaluation by GbrooksPDXStudent

 * Points: 44

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Spelling and word choice were top notch, great use of grammar as well.

Language Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Definitely feels concise and well thought-out.

Organization Meets Standard: 4

Paragraph format was a little dense but certainly got your point across in terms of sequence for events.

Coding Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Coding was excellent, nothing I would change to the formatting of this page.

Validity Exceeds Standard: 4.5

While sources are a separate topic, I will say all the information present appears valid and well-researched.

Completion Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Highly detailed and complete in both information of the topic and the assignment. Well done!

Relevance Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Highly relevant given the current political turmoil in Ukraine, adds a lot of weight to the situation.

Sources Exceeds Standard: 4.5

None were out of place or invalid, all were well used and appropriate for the piece.

Citations Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Citations were all accurate and weren't false or questionable.

References Meets Standard: 4

Slightly sparse in the page but accurate when used and what they link to.

GbrooksPDXStudent (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

6/16/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is good stuff, but it really belongs elsewhere than on the Kiev page. (see below)
 * Points: 40.5/40
 * Grade: 101.25%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * "... ending the strive toward..." strive is a verb; strife is a noun.

Language
Meets standard.
 * The first sentence is a bit long. Could it be cut in half? e.g.: "...known as 'Maidan'. They were organized by a movement..."
 * "President Viktor Yanukovych was expected to have signed an agreement at the Third European Partnership Summit in Vilnius," It would have been a good idea to relate when this was supposed to have happened.
 * Since the EU also has a customs union, it is best to specify the Eurasian Customs Union as being the organization that Ukraine could have joined.
 * "...had fled to Russia in asylum..." probably just omit the 'in asylum' bit, since it probably creates more confusion with respect to asylum seekers.

Organization
Meets standard.
 * I really think elements from your draft are better integrated into the Euromaidan and Ukrainian crisis articles, rather than much more than a single paragraph on the Kiev article. (See relevance, below)

Coding
Exceeds standard.

Validity
Meets standard.
 * "On November 21, 2013 Kiev underwent..." I think it's more accurate to say that 'Starting on November 21, 2013...', since it was a process, not a single-day set of events.
 * "...toward a Ukrainian membership..." it might be better to mention this as 'association', rather than outright membership. Your source also says "association agreement," which is a very different thing than EU membership.

Completion
Exceeds standard. A great amount of stuff!

Relevance
Nearly meets standard.
 * Most of this material belongs on the Euromaidan article, with just a single-paragraph extract on the Kiev page, regarding Kiev-specific elements, alongside a main-article link to the Euromaidan article.