User talk:Zrady/sandbox ShakhtyTrial

Andrew's Peer Review
This article does a lot of things right. Primarily, the best thing about this article is that it is an example of good, objective writing. I enjoyed how the trial was explained in terms of scope, and fit in with other events of the time. However, adding a few lines about the trial results might help keep the article grounded on the trial itself. Unfortunately at the time I read this, there was a little too much talk about the significance of the trial and not what actually happened during the trial. Additionally, if the opinion of the article writer is that the trials were designed so Stalin could purge enemies, then they were not "foolish" per se, but something else, possibly malicious? What of the fate of those arrested? This is a gap in the article that needs to be filled. Other than these points, the sources seem to be good and the overall tone is generally well done. There isn't too much emphasis on any part that does not require it. Well done. --Andrew Halford (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex's Peer Review
Overall content seems like it's good, but the lead section feels a little out of place. Maybe some short background info could be listed first? Other than that it follows guidelines pretty well. Both sides somewhat represented in a neutral tone. Going through some of the sources they seem pretty reliable. Overall I'd say it was pretty well done, but I would consider giving some background information and cleaning up how the information is presented. It comes off as a little cluttered to me. --Alex Munguia (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Melenovich's Peer Review
Very Interesting Article for starters. I like that it opens with a summary of the trial and provides a solid background. This coupled with the inclusion of dates and numbers helps to set the stage well. Within that summary though, it may help to add additional citations to further validate the statements. For example "Fifty-three engineers and managers from the North Caucasus town of Shakhty were arrested in 1928 after being accused of conspiring to sabotage the Soviet economy with the former owners of the coal mines." While this statement is later substantiated as fact, I think it would help lend credence to the article if it were validated right up front. The first sentence as quoted above also seems a bit lengthy. It might flow better if it were either broken up or punctuated differently.

Under the History section "the local OGPU arrested a group of engineers" seems a bit vague. I see of course where the link takes you to an article about the OGPU, but something to the effect of "the secret police of the Soviet Union" could help by answering the "who" question right up front. Within this same section I believe a citation pointing to the statements about Yefim Yevdokimov could help give credence to his place in the article. You could possibly also expand on this section to include a brief description of who he his since he is mentioned by name.

This statement "The trial marked the beginning of "wrecking" as a crime within the Soviet Union, as found in Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code)" is very interesting. Maybe consider adding a link to the actual section of the penal code that states this and add a citation? I found myself wanting to read more on the subject.

Further in the section when Stalin is first mentioned it seems a little abrupt. "Stalin" appears suddenly as a statement without any prior introduction and then discussed quite a bit after. It could be helpful to expand on this section and provide some background as to Stalin's involvement in the entire era. He is mentioned several times after but never properly introduced. For example, in the statement "Stalin mentioned a month later that the Shakhty arrests proved that class struggle was intensifying as the Soviet Union moved closer to socialism." Where did Stalin mention this? It needs either a link and/or a citation to give it credence.

In summary I really like the potential of this article. I think you all picked a great piece for our assignment. With some clarification and adding some citations, as in the examples above, it could be a really solid article. I find it interesting and full of quantifying information. So much so, that expanding it is almost necessary to explain some of the details. I would focus of the who, what, why, and when questions to explain the detail statements used throughout the article. I hope this helps and thank you for adding this piece to our class, it is very interesting and relevant! HistoryMike01 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Chris' Peer Review
First off, I would like to say that there are a lot of great qualities about this article. It keeps a very neutral tone throughout the article and really hones in on the importance of the Shakhty Trial. I like the lead segment that briefly introduces the importance of the Shakhty Trial before jumping into what it was. I think you could talk about the significance of the accusations and the impact of what was happening. I think it would provide a little more context as to why the Soviet government would think that they were conspiring to sabotage the mines. I liked the transition from the Shakthy Trial to its impact going forward in Russian history. I think shows the start of a pretty significant time in the Soviet Union. Overall I think this article is great, there are just a few tweaks that need to be made to make it perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.thomas11 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Leia's Peer Review
The article is off to a great start, but the lead section needs fleshing out in order to give a clearer idea of what the article is about. While it does give the necessary information, it could probably use a little more content in order to provide the reader with a better introduction. The section "General Population Response to the Trial" contains minimal information, and I believe it either needs more content or it should be absorbed into another section of the article. Other than some grammatical errors, the article is well written and maintains a neutral tone. Lhall23 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mackinley's Peer Review
Let me begin with the good. I think the article is written from a neutral perspective and the paragraphs/sections are structured well. The citations look excellent (I will certainly add some myself). The facts are presented in order, and the meaningful elements of this topic are properly addressed.

In terms of criticism, I see we have some grammatical errors and some of the headings overlap with one another. I don't believe that we should begin the article with a section named "The Trial." We have enough information within the article (and certainly enough online) to warrant a heading regarding the lead-up to the trial. I would consider adding a brief description of those accused, the accuser, and the time period surrounding the trial. With a few changes, we can present the article in a more chronological and informative way. For example, we could reference the high number of deaths and accidents that occurred in the late 1920s, follow it up with the reasoning for the accidents, and then present how this all relates to the motive. We also are not presenting things in pure chronological order, which could be confusing. The Implications and Aftermath sections are also pretty similar, in some regards. Also, I don't know if the headings are named appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr917 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)