Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leon Trotsky/archive1

Leon Trotsky
I stumbled on this article a few weeks ago and found it very impressive. I have made just a few small adjustments to the article, as the bulk of the work was done by others. A detailed biography, extensive references section and citations, illustrative and fully-tagged images, and a talk page and history that show no significant factual or POV disputes. Andrew Levine 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nominate and Support. Andrew Levine 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object. This is a good article, and I anticipate supporting it after some minor technicalities: 1) transform external links in main body into proper footnotes 2) ToC is too big, and many sections are stub sections. Consider removing some sections for a smaller ToC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Fantastic article. (Smerk 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Support. Very well done. (EncephalonSeven 05:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Minor object. Great work, but an article of that size should have a longer introduction for the convenience of those who can't spare the time to read it through. Kosebamse 08:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The lead does exactly what it's supposed to and is as long as it needs to be. It gives a concise overview of who Leon Trotsky was, and what happened to him. Just because it's a long article doesn't mean it needs a long lead. I think maybe I will add a sentence or two about how influential he is on present-day organizations and that should be enough. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. "Theory" section is too short and not terribly substantive; its opening sentence, "Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky," is virtually useless. Monicasdude 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence. This article, which is a biography of Trotsky and not an overview of Trotskyism as noted at the top of the page, is too long for a detailed and substantive discussion of Trotskyism to be added, and that's why both the Theory section and the main article itself both lead off by suggesting the reader visit Trotskyism for a detailed discussion of his theories. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think the theoretical section isn't substantive enough; at the very least it calls for some brief exposition, rather than mentioning those whose ideas he did not share. Monicasdude 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a little more to the section to provide some more explanation of what Trotskyism is rather than just what it isn't (also note the subsection of the "Contribs. to Theory" section, which goes into detail about his concept of Permenent Revolution). Still, I really think that getting any deeper into Trotskyism in Leon Trotsky would actually make the article worse, given (1) the present size of the article and (2) the fact that Trotskyism was split off from this article in order to focus on that subject more, so that Leon Trotsky could concentrate more on biography. Andrew Levine 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object. ToC is over-complex, external links section is in Bold for some reason . The lead is very short, only one paragraph for such a long article? There are also lots of red links and more pictures would be a nice addition. — Wackymacs 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the External Links to remove the excessive bolding.
 * The lead is being addressed as stated above.
 * There are actually very few red links, and those lead to articles that need to be created. Their visibility is a good thing.
 * The article already has nine pictures, but I will look for a few more. Andrew Levine 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The 'external links' header is in bold still, but that sections context is no longer in bold. The notes section should be a numbered list instead of a bulleted list. I meant more pictures in the sections that do not have images, mainly the middle sections. I know there are not many red links, but it would be nice if those articles were created as stubs for now. — Wackymacs 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just converted the notes to a numbered list The Catfish 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have one more reason to object: The 'Trotsky in Literature' section is just a small bulleted list which needs either expanding into prose or merging into another section as prose. — Wackymacs 14:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid objection, as there are over 50 current Featured Articles that include a small section that's just a bulleted list of items that could be rendered as prose but for organizational reasons aren't. For just a few examples, see England expects that every man will do his duty, Octopus card, Three Laws of Robotics, etc. --Andrew Levine 03:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you're missing the point, the fact is that this is a valid objection because it can be easily addressed. Do not compare your article to other featured articles because their circumstances could have been different, and may have been featured a long time ago. If you just fix the last few things I've mentioned I'll be willing to support ;) — Wackymacs 08:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. At 93 kb, this article could use being broken down into appropriate subarticles with summaries of those articles at the main article, a la Joseph Smith, Jr. The Catfish 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hugo Chavez is 100kb. It's a featured article. (P.S. Thanks for the numbered list help.) Andrew Levine 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As for the length, I still think it could stand to be broken down more to keep the length down. Hugo Chavez does this too, and I can't imagine how long it would be if it didn't. I'll try to help out with the subarticle-ization. - The Catfish 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I think it's an excellent article. I also think it is a bit long-winded for the general reader. Perhaps we could transform the bulk of the material here into a three-article series (with a nod to Isaac Deutscher) and edit this main article down to a shorter overview article? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 94kb is far too long. I'm sure the authors have the knowledge and enthusiasm to write several hundred kb more, but the skill in writing an excellent encyclopaedia article on a major historical figure such as Trotsky is to write it concisely.  32kb is no longer a technical restriction but is an excellent figure to aim for when writing a featured article.  Also, please try to cut down on the number of references, many of which are multiple citations from the same source and could be consolidated.  More than 20 or so citations gives an article the feel of an academic paper instead of an encyclopaedia article.  The lead section could do with being somewhat longer, three paragraphs would be ideal.  Also, the TOC is very long, and the capitalisation of section headings doesn't conform to the WP:MOS.  Worldtraveller 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with the objection about citations. It amazes me that someone can object to an article being too thoroughly cited! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We've got to remember we're an encyclopaedia, not a repository of academic papers. Important controversial facts should be individually referenced, but not every detail in the general flow of the text needs to have a footnote to explain where it comes from.  Too many footnotes disrupt the text and distract the reader.  If every sentence had a footnote and a reference, I'm sure you'd also agree that was excessive, no?  There's a balance to be struck, and it's certainly just as possible to have too many citations as too few. Worldtraveller 15:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I personally find every sentence having a footnote and a reference a bit excessive, it is pretty much mandated by Verifiability as it now stands, if each successive sentence has a different source than the one preceding it. If the standards and guidelines should change (and perhaps they should) fine, but I don't see how we can say that complying with current standards and guidelines should disqualify an article from being featured. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure I see where the verifiability page mandates such excessive referencing. I think the relevant guideline is in fact the brilliant prose criterion - excessive referencing severely harms the readability of an article and puts off many readers.  I am a scientist, and of course I write journal papers with scores of citations, but when I am a general reader I have no need of such large numbers of citations - specific facts referenced, and a list of the books/papers used when writing the article are all that I require.  The referencing in this article is too obtrusive, in my opinion. Worldtraveller 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - I'm not sure how many inline citations where there when Worldtraveller saw it first, but 43 doesn't seem like too many to me. They do get a bit dense from the range 25-36, so reducing those down a little bit would be great. I agree, however, with the length problem (see Summary style) and I have no idea why there is a section as short as 'Criticisms'. Remember that subarticles are your friends&mdash;people doing serious research on the guy can find all the nitty gritty details they want, while the normal Joe who wants to know what the guy did doesn't have to read for 45 minutes. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments added after nomination closed

 * Strong Support ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Changing to object after looking at some technacalities, I think 94 KB is way too long, and maybe the article can be split into two separate one's as John Smith's was (is). ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Change my mind again, this deserves it. Support ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support- Great article Johhny-turbo 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - With so much trash promoted to FAs these days, this article on such a controversial subject is truly outstanding. --Ghirla | talk 16:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment- As the editor responsible for 80% of the current version, I should probably address some of the questions raised above.
 * Size - Once it became clear that the article was getting really long, I suggested splitting it into more manageable chunks. However, the idea was poorly received on the Talk page, so I let it grow. And grow. And then grow some more :) If there is a consensus that the article would be better if it was split into, say, "Before the 1917 revolution", "Revolution and the Civil War", "Between the Civil War and the Exile", and "The Last Exile", I am sure it would be workable. Also, a good half of the verbiage in the Brest-Litovsk section could be profitably moved to the parent article, which I was planning to do at some point.
 * Theory - There was a separate article on Trotskyism when I started the rewrite in the fall of 2005 and another editor moved the theoretical sections of "Trotsky" to "Trotskyism" around the same time.
 * Criticism - This was a medium size section that I was going to rewrite once I got to it, but another editor moved the then current version to the Talk page due to it being controversial and poorly attributed. It could probably be rebuilt given enough time and a strict adherence to NPOV. Moving Emma's Kronstadt comments there would be a good start.
 * TOC is too long - Perhaps we could merge some shorter sections? No preference either way, really, just whatever makes it easier for readers to follow the text.
 * Too many footnotes - Trotsky is still somewhat controversial after all these years, so I tried to have attributions for anything remotely questionable. Also, I was going to move some of the footnotes into the body of the article, but got sidetracked. And if you think that Leon Trotsky is too footnote-rich, you really don't want to read the article that I put together on his sister, Olga Kameneva :)
 * The article is too verbose - Guilty as charged. The current version was a second draft and I was hoping to come back to it and do some polishing/pruning after a month or two, but haven't been able to.


 * Finally, I would like to thank Andrew Levine and other editors who have been trying to get the article in shape over the last month or so. Time and health permitting, I will go over the current version at some point and do some minor cleanup. Ahasuerus 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing re: footnotes:


 * We've got to remember we're an encyclopaedia, not a repository of academic papers. Important controversial facts should be individually referenced, but not every detail in the general flow of the text needs to have a footnote to explain where it comes from.  Too many footnotes disrupt the text and distract the reader.


 * It's true that most encyclopedias do not have a lot of footnotes. However, many encyclopedia editors have an industrial strength database that they use when they are writing or editing. James Monaco has his "BASELINE" database, John Clute has his master catalog, and so on. Based on their track record, we trust these editors to do a reasonable job of keeping their databases updated and accurate. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have anything comparable. There is no master database of facts and sources and articles are not guaranteed to be have been edited by people with established reputations. Therefore, the need to document and attribute sources is much greater and footnotes are the best mechanism we have come up with so far, warts and all. Ahasuerus 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I have seen the changes made in this article from when it was a very simple article to what it has become now, thanks much to Ahasuerus.

Comments: about the article size. The article is big, period. You can't get around that. The only thing that breaking it up into smaller articles helps is: lowering the bandwidth of the dial-up user and more importantly, lowering the bandwidth that wikipeda's links have to handle-- minimal gains, none the less. The article is big, it will take time to browse through this much information whether in one article or in many (and it would take more time to browse through many articles than just one article). IF anything, I think the fact that the article is this big should qualify it even more as a featured article for wikipedia. Content, ie: facts, should not be inhibited by fears of article size (90+ KB is nothing). This article is very good.--So Hungry 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)