Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1

Nestor Makhno

 * Nominator(s): Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Nestor Makhno, a Ukrainian anarchist revolutionary who led the Makhnovist movement and its insurgent army during the Ukrainian War of Independence. I spent a good portion of last year researching Makhno and expanding the article, completing a peer review from fellow editors and a good article review from someone with expertise in the subject matter. Having remained largely stable since then, I am confident that it is now ready to be featured, and am looking forward to any comments and feedback that people involved with the FAC process may have. Best regards. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Added alt text. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The map is difficult to read due to lack of contrast between the numbers and background colour
 * Left a message on the image talk page, asking the creators to change the colour of the numbers. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * File:1921._Нестор_Махно_в_лагере_для_перемещенных_лиц_в_Румынии.jpg: when and where was this first published and what was the author's date of death? Ditto File:Makhno_en_1918.JPG, File:Yakov_Aleksandrovich_Slashchov.jpg, File:1920._Штаб_Повстанческой_Армии_и_комсостав_обсуждает_проект_разгрома_врангелевцев,_Старобельск.jpg, File:Nestor_Makhno_and_his_Lieutenants,_Berdyansk,_1919.jpg, File:Makhno_1925.jpg, File:Нестор_Махно_с_дочерью,_Париж.jpg
 * Honestly I have no idea. These images were taken around or even over 100 years ago, in states that haven't existed in many decades. I have looked through my sources, but the only information I have on the images is the identity of the subjects of the photographs, and the location and the date the photographs were taken. I have asked @UnknownVolin to see if they know any further information about the identity of the photographer(s) and the details of the photos' publication. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * File:1906._Нестор_Махно.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:1909._Группа_анархистов_Гуляйполя.jpg, File:NestorMakhno.jpeg
 * As above, I know when and where they were taken, but I'm not sure about when and where they were published. Will wait and see if UnknownVolin knows any more on these details. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * File:V_A_Antonov-Ovseenko.jpeg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Grigorev.jpg, File:Nestor_Makhno_1920.jpg, File:Makhno_Berkman.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As above, waiting on further details. In the meantime, I'll try doing my own research on the details of the photographs, but I'm not sure how far I'll get. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking into it further, but as I expected, I haven't been able to find any information about the identity of the photographers or details about the photos' first publication. In a couple cases, I've found an institute or museum that maintains an archive with the photos in them, but that's as far as I've managed to get. I'm not sure what else I can do about this, to be honest. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll note there's two new images (one rejigged) and to respond to "I'm not sure what else I can do about this", it might be the time simply to remove the images which have issues. Shame, but it makes sense that anything on the front page should be squeaky clean Mujinga (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, on the new image (File:Makhnovia.svg) with the caption "Map showing the territory of the Makhnovshchina at its largest extent, following the battle of Peregonovka", it's not clear to me what the two areas shaded light red and dark red are depicting. Mujinga (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd attempted to clarify what this map is displaying. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one! Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Just noting that some of the issues raised above are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Grnrchst, can I draw your attention to Nikkimaria's comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for late response. I've attempted to rectify the license tag issues, but I'm not sure what more I can do about the author and first publication details. I've already attempted looking into this matter as far as I can, but digging up this kind of obscure information isn't an easy task. It's like trying to catch smoke. I even spoke to a subject-matter expert who has been through Russian and Ukrainian archives in order to find information on this subject, and they only knew of a couple cases in which the photographers and publication details are known. And they've already published a number of these photos in their book, without bumping into any century-old issues over authorship or publication credits. If there's more I can do, please let me know how. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As Mujinga noted, if you're unable to verify the accuracy of the license tags, it may become necessary to replace the images with ones with clearer status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What images with clearer status? You've raised issues with almost every photograph in the article! Is it policy to assume bad faith with every single photograph taken over a hundred years ago during an insurgent civil war? Are you suggesting I just purge the article of all its images because I don't know who took them? Literally what can I do that will actually improve this article and not just make it worse? The prose comments and source checks on this review have been endlessly helpful, but this image review has been nothing but a stress headache for me... --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is compliance with criterion 3, which reads in full: "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." A featured article is supposed to represent wikipedia's best work and I do think this article is nearly there, but unfortunately if the copyright status of some images can not be established then it would be better to remove them. I agree that in one way this does not improve the article since illustrations add to text, but on the other hand we can then all agree it's an example of wikipedia's best work. Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These images are in the public domain. Everybody uses them as such. I can't help but find it utterly absurd that Wikipedia is willing to copyright troll itself to such an extent that it goes further than accredited historians and published authors, not to mention every other website on the internet. Let's have a look at some of these:
 * Lead image: 1921. Нестор Махно в лагере для перемещенных лиц в Румынии.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Kingdom of Romania in 1921. It was created 2 years before the country's first copyright law was passed; 6 years before Romania signed the Berne convention; 13 years before Makhno's death; 35 years before the Socialist Republic of Romania declared non-artistic photographs are not protected by copyright; and 70 years before the public domain cut-off date for photographs. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
 * Early years image: 1906._Нестор_Махно.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Russian Empire in 1906. The Russian Empire was never party to the Berne Convention and has no legal successor state. The image was never copy-written and has no legal country of origin. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
 * Revolutionary activity image: 1909._Группа_анархистов_Гуляйполя.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Russian Empire in 1909. The Russian Empire was never party to the Berne Convention and has no legal successor state. The image was never copy-written and has no legal country of origin. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
 * Agrarian activism image: Makhno en 1918.JPG. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian State in 1918. It was taken 16 years before Makhno's death; 38 years before the retroactive public-domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 55 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 78 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
 * Alliance with the Bolsheviks image: 1920. Штаб Повстанческой Армии и комсостав обсуждает проект разгрома врангелевцев, Старобельск.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1920. It was taken 36 years before the retroactive public domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 53 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 76 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
 * Anti-Bolshevik rebellion image: Nestor Makhno and his Lieutenants, Berdyansk, 1919.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919. It was taken 2 years before most of its subjects died; 15 years before Makhno's death; 37 years before the retroactive public domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 54 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 77 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
 * I would do more, but I'm exhausted. That headache thing wasn't hyperbole. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this is frustrating, but we need to be able to demonstrate that the images are free in the US as well as in their country of origin; just saying that everyone acts as if they're free isn't sufficient. Each of these currently has a tag for US status that relies on publication, not just creation, before a certain date; as far as I can tell from the information provided, none of those tags can be verified at this point. If we're not able to identify first publication, can we identify one early enough to confirm US status per the Hirtle chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So the United States just claims all photographs, from all countries, even of people that never set foot on its soil, as its property under its own copyright laws? Brilliant. Well I guess I'll have a look at this wee chart, see what hoops I have to jump through. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If I can help here, two thoughts: (1) What if we just remove the images that have unclear copyright to close this review and pass the FA criteria, then continue the discussion on the talk page, adding images back as necessary? (2) Commons cares about the copyright in the country of origin and the country of its servers (the US). The Ukraine licenses appear well researched per what you said above (I recommend copying this research into the file descriptions for posterity) and the US license is likely if there is no evidence of first publication, i.e., 120 years since its creation. This would mean that most of these images (after 1902) are technically not clear of copyright in the US. (And yes, this is needlessly rigorous for Wikipedia to arbitrate alas is the truth.) This is what I meant in the peer review about the copyright for these images being a pain. :)  czar  15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it incredibly objectionable that for this article to be considered one of "the best", I would have to intentionally make it objectively worse. That is a disgraceful precedent for an FAC review. I'm also astounded that almost every image in this article is being considered for removal, solely because of an assumption that they must be secretly copywritten in the United States - an assumption circularly based on an absence of evidence. Despite having no evidence of them being copywritten, this assumption is driving me to ridiculous lengths just trying to find any information whatsoever about a single image; one that is already being used everywhere by everybody because it is so obviously unambiguously in the public domain in everything but the on-paper technicalities of some country an ocean away.
 * The files of these images have been circulating the internet for decades and the photos themselves have been circulating for decades more. Are they all copywritten? Has everybody from websites, to zines, to published historians been infringing somebody's copyright for decades? The lead photo isn't even published the same way in different sources, with some using a backgroundless version, or one where Makhno's face seems redrawn weirdly. The earliest version of our lead photo (with the background included) that I can find published in my paperback sources is actually in Sean Patterson's 2020 book. Does he now, without knowing, own the copyright to this photo? Or is it actually owned by one of the countless random websites (including wikicommons) that published it before him? Or is it actually owned by one of the (dead) people that published the backgroundless and/or doctored versions beforehand? Or do they each only own individual copyrights to the specific photographs from their specific collections? I have an endless number of unanswered questions because obviously I am not an expert in United States copyright law, nor did I think I would be expected to be when I started writing about a Ukrainian. I'm twisting myself into knots over this.
 * Please tell me there is a third way forward with this that doesn't involve me (a) sabotaging the quality of the article or (b) degrading my mental health looking for something that I don't think anybody knows or cares about outside of this review... --Grnrchst (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most would agree that US copyright law has devolved past the point of fairness, but that is another discussion. I'm happy to answer the above background questions if you'd like but we should probably take that to another talk page. Realistically, I don't think it's worth spending more time trying to find first publication evidence when the holding archives and associated academics also haven't already identified where the images were used. Most are likely unpublished (i.e., still in copyright) or first published in a non-English (Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian) publication outside our search engines. The fastest resolution is to remove or replace the images with those known to have copyright clearance. I think we can replace a few of them but yes this means that most of the Makhno ones cannot be verified as published. (I wrestled with this for the photographs in Kronstadt rebellion—see its talk page—and had started a conversation on the Makhno infobox portrait last year.) Requiring free use media was an early Wikipedia decision meant to make sure any copies of the encyclopedia would be truly free from copy restrictions. This means some rich material cannot be included, but so is the case copyright and fair use in most articles. And the biography you've painstakingly written is able to stand without them. czar  21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , can you review the license on File:Makhno, 1919.jpg, if this would be sufficient for a portrait czar  20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be real, that's a terrible portrait image. This is exactly what I mean when I say this process intends to make the article worse. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The US license on that is fine; the situation in country of origin is a bit confusing on first glance, but if there's a desire to not use this image probably not worth the effort to pick it apart. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First publication of the infobox portrait was before 1928 so we should be good there czar  21:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for finding these, seriously. I've been spending all damn week looking for extra information on this photo and got absolutely nowhere with it. Absolutely kicking myself that I never checked Arshinov's or Volin's books. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czar; @Mujinga; @Nikkimaria: Ok aye. I think I'm done with this "image review". This process has given me nothing but stress, headaches, and now sleep deprivation, with almost nothing to show for it after days and days of work. If I can keep the lead image in the article, then that's literally the least I could possibly have hoped for. Please at least have it in your heart to not delete that one. Do what you will with the rest of the images, but I'm not giving any more of myself to a process fundamentally designed to punish non-American subjects. It's too much. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Grnrchst, your frustration is understandable but image review is a matter of policy at WP; Czar, Mujinga and Nikkimaria are just the messengers, putting in the effort to try and help make the article as good as possible without creating legal problems. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm not trying to have a go at them. I'm just completely exhausted by the process. Sorry again. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Grnrchst, the image issues are what's holding up this nomination at this point. I would echo the comments above to simply remove the images that have unclear status at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I've purged the article of its photographs. I'm not happy about this, I think this process amounts to little more than copyright trolling. But it's done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

 * Hi Grnrchst, good to see you at FAC, and I can see loads of work has already been done at GA review and PR. I'm going through the article making queries on prose, all quite minor so far but because it's quite a long article there's a number of comments so I've put them at Talk:Nestor_Makhno - Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one for all the replies - most have been answered and some it seems best to see what other reviewers think so I'll list them here now and maybe someone else will give comments Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A few issues still open or up for debate in my opinion:
 * Use of nestor (first name) instead of makhno (surname) in early life section
 * "Map of Southern Russia " issue (as discussed above)
 * Batko vs Bat'ko
 * A map of battle locations would be useful
 * Add a selected works section?δ
 * Phrasing of "A bullet wound in his right ankle threatened amputation" Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed that last one, must have missed the comment. I'll have to have a look at the mapping issues. The map workshop didn't respond to my last request, and the creators of the southern russia map haven't responded either, so perhaps I'll need to throw a few together myself. :/ -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have made it clear before that I'm very close to supporting. "Batko vs Bat'ko" and the amputation phrasing are both resolved now. I'd still like to hear another opinion on the other issues. Mujinga (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Remaining issues:
 * Use of nestor (first name) instead of makhno (surname) in early life section - resolved
 * "Map of Southern Russia " issue (as discussed above) - resolved
 * A map of battle locations would be useful - another image has been added but needs clarification, mentioned above in images
 * Add a selected works section? - if nobody else is flagging that up, it won't stop me supporting Mujinga (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the Makhnovshchina map. As for a map of battle locations, what exactly are you proposing? Like is this supposed to be a map for each battle? A map of Ukraine with location markers of battles that have happened? How many battles? Which battles? Grnrchst (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No I meant more the addition another images satisfies my request. I was suggesting earlier a map of Ukraine with some signifcant places as regards to Makhno marked on it. Mujinga (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So in sum, happy now to support, excellent work! Mujinga (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there anything I can do about this to invite more people into the discussion? Honestly it's quite discouraging that my first ever FAC, which I've put countless hours into and which people on the FAC project encouraged me to submit, has received so little attention. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to FAC, I'm sure you'll enjoy it here. FAC is built to support topics with wide popular appeal, so nominators with more obscure topics are often sent packing. This is especially the case with longer articles, which reviewers are more apprehensive about committing to. I've taken to posting notices on relevant WikiProjects whenever I have a new FAC, and I'll advertise my own candidates when I review others, like I just did below. Some editors will also ping frequent reviewers in a given subject area that they've had positive experiences with (given the understanding that there's no expectation or obligation, of course). I also see Mujinga's comments above; responding to existing comments quickly can also help demonstrate "movement towards a consensus to promote". Like many areas of Wikipedia, FAC has its own politics and norms. I don't understand some of them myself, but what can you do. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. A lot of these suggestions would be very helpful on the project's front page. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the helpful advice from Thebiguglyalien, if you didn't already do this I'd suggest contacting on their individual talkpages the people who commented at GA and PR - they'd prob be pleased to see the article at FAC! Mujinga (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I'm too late at this point but my PR reviewers were @Czar, @Asilvering and @Arms & Hearts. I already spoken to my GA reviewer about this FAC review. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, I don't really know anything about FAC and I'm pretty slammed up until the end of the month, so I can't help on this "3 or 4 days" timeline - but it's surely worth pointing out that the thorough GA review was done by an academic expert on the subject. If it's good enough for an academic with direct expertise I can't imagine I'd have much to quibble over. -- asilvering (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the very belated response Grnrchst – I'm also unfortunately lacking in time and expertise, but glad to see this moving forward. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue." Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This will probably duplicate some of the advice above, but my boilerplate response to this type of query is:"Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process."
 * Thanks for the information. All of this would be very helpful to have on the FAC project's front page. The culture of the project really ought to be explained up front, rather than just expecting newbies to figure it all out by themselves. That I was strongly advised to seek a mentor, none of whom would give me the time of day, but I wasn't told any of this until the FAC was close to being archived, is quite frustrating. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * might we consider adding a sentence, or even two, on seeking reviewers to the instructions? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly I would take out the bit about mentoring, because it is rarely a good way to get feedback prior to nomination. I'm not sure about adding info to the instructions because I think this needs to be kept concise and it seems quite long as it is for new nominators to read through.Any additions are likely to be missed inside the big wall of text. IMO the best course of action could be first shortening the instructions, then adding something about the most effective way to get reviews (that is, reviewing others' articles). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't see this addressed in the FAC intro text, I've added a line on gaining support through pre-reviews to the proposed first-timers' welcome message. czar  16:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Thebiguglyalien
I'll have a review of this posted within a few days. In the meantime, feel free to review my own FAC for Barbara Bush if you're interested in the subject. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

General notes:
 * Some of the sections in this article are very long. If there are more than 5–6 paragraphs in a row, then consider making a new subsection.
 * Split the longer sections. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * At about 9500 words, the article as a whole is quite long. There are some places that go into a lot of detail about every little thing that he did. When possible, condense any blow-by-blow accounts into brief summaries. At a certain point, too much detail can obscure the main points, and I did find myself losing track of where Makhno was amid the other happenings at certain points.
 * Are there any parts that stand out to you for this? I could do with an example, just to know what parts to trim. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's tough to say, because there are different levels of detail, and there's no clear line where it's too much. After reading the article, nothing stood out as totally irrelevant or unreasonably detailed, so I won't count this against the review. But if you wish to shorten the article at any point during or after FAC, it would just involve removing minor details and rewording passages in a way that describes the main idea instead of listing everything that happens. If you think that all of the information in the article should stay, then maybe 9500 words is the right amount. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The word "however" can almost always be deleted to improve sentence flow without changing the meaning
 * Removed in all cases. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why this article uses the spelling "otaman" instead of the spelling used at the article for ataman?
 * "Otaman" is the Ukrainian spelling, "ataman" is the Russian spelling. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * He's described as "young" several times in the earlier sections.
 * Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How many times were Makhno and his movement supposed to be "liquidized"? It appears three times in the article, but it's oddly specific.
 * This is the terminology used by the Bolsheviks when ordering the suppression of Makhno and his movement. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources are on the older side. I see a few from the 1980s, a few from the 1970s, and one from 1935. I don't know what the standard is for recency of sources at FAC, but uses of Chamberlain (1987) [1935] might need a close look.
 * I wasn't aware that the publication date of sources was such an issue. Chamberlin was a historian and his book was published by a university press, is the date of its initial publication really a problem? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily an issue. WP:AGE MATTERS is relevant, but it's worth noting that it's less applicable to history-related articles. If nothing else, I suggest keeping a close eye on whether Chamberlain contradicts any of the other sources. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've checked over it and can't find any contradictions. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead:
 * the Makhnovshchina (loosely translated as "Makhno movement") was a predominantly peasant phenomenon that grew into a mass social movement. – This doesn't actually say what it is. Is it a nationalist group? A revolutionary communist group? The fact that he tries to "guide" its ideology suggests that it's not necessarily the latter.
 * Hopefully I've clarified it a bit better. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead says that he was involved in "a number of controversies". But the body indicates that false accusations of antisemitism are the only real "controversy" he was ever involved with outside of factional/ideological disputes with other anarchists. Does the body fully represent public opinion of Makhno and what he was praised or criticized for, and by whom?
 * The factional disputes were what I was referring to, alongside the accusations of antisemitism. Is there a better word I can use to clarify this than "controversies"? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One option would be to cut "a number of controversies, including". Then it just describes the two different concepts on their own. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * from tuberculosis-related causes. – So he didn't die from tuberculosis itself?
 * Cut "-related causes". --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Early life:
 * At only seven years old, the young Nestor – Redundant. I suggest removing "the young" since the same phrase is used later in this section
 * Already removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you know if Imperial rubles can be adjusted for inflation into modern rubles?
 * Not really. Economic instability brought by the revolution means that adjusting for inflation on this scale is almost meaningless. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is Ivan's quote relevant? Its inclusion made me think that it was going to be referenced again later in the article.
 * It was a pretty big influence on Makhno's anti-authoritarianism, the sentiment to not just take abuse from higher powers and to fight back against them. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolutionary activity:
 * How was Makhno specifically involved in the Black Terror? It starts by mentioning the Black Terror and landowners/police, but then it jumps to expropriations for just a few words before moving on to propaganda, and none of it actually mentions Makhno.
 * Makhno was named by an informant as having participated in the robbery of a post office cart, but there was never enough evidence to convict him. This is alluded to in the section, but not explicitly elaborated. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like the sort of detail that would be valuable in the article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a wee detail about this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * including Makhno himself in August 1909 – Can we cut "himself"?
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Imprisonment:
 * A few words saying who Kropotkin was or what Mutual Aid was about would be helpful. Even if it's just something like "the anarchist text"
 * Clarified Kropotkin as "the Russian anarchist communist theorist"
 * It's clearer, though I don't love having four adjectives (including three "ist" adjectives) in a row. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * took the young anarchist under his wing – Idiom
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * did not break his revolutionary zeal, with Makhno vowing – This language is a little too strong
 * Ok, I think I've neutralised this a bit better as "did not break his desire for revolution, with Makhno swearing". Let me know if I could still make changes. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Agrarian activism:
 * sought to seize – The alliteration makes this read awkwardly
 * Replaced "sought" with "desired". --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * becoming infamous throughout the region – Infamous to whom?
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno subsequently disarmed and minimized the powers of local law enforcement – How did he do that?
 * What do you mean? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did he have influence over the local law enforcement? Did he build up his own peasant forces that pushed the original law enforcement out? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The latter, attempted to clarify this as "Makhno and his supporters". --Grnrchst (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * All this made him become known – Wordy
 * Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * During this period Makhno, participated in – Unnecessary comma
 * Oop, cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Journey to Moscow:
 * the newly established Cheka – I suggest describing what this is so the reader doesn't have to click the link
 * Clarified as Bolshevik secret police. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * where he found local anarchist intellectuals more predisposed to slogans and manifestos than action – This comes close to judging them in wikivoice.
 * Changed to "as he considered". Hopefully that clarifies better that it's something he thinks. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * who wished Makhno well – Is this relevant?
 * Probably not. Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * applied to the Kremlin – This wording seems strange. Did he send in a formal application to be considered for some papers?
 * He did. Rearranged the sentence to hopefully clarify this a bit better. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Lenin showered Makhno with questions – Seems a little too informal
 * Replaced with "questioned him extensively". --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * and admitted his mistakes regarding the revolutionary conditions in Ukraine – Comes close to judging Lenin in wikivoice. We shouldn't definitively state that something is a mistake.
 * Lenin himself said this, I'm not trying to judge him in wikivoice. Is there some way I could better clarify that this is something he, not I, said? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "said he had made mistakes regarding" or "described his actions regarding ... as a mistake". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rewritten as "admitted he had made mistakes in his analysis of the revolutionary conditions in Ukraine". Is that ok or does it still need tweaking? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Leader of the Makhnovist movement:
 * Armed with a fake passport – "Armed" feels a little strong
 * Neutralised. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * advocated for – I used to do this all the time, it turns out the "for" is unnecessary
 * Ah one of those common grammatical mistakes with English. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "toward" and "towards". --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (I think toward and towards is just a dialect thing, like color and colour) Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * narrowly escaping capture – In what way? How narrowly?
 * This one had a funny story, as told by Skirda, that I wasn't sure how to integrate. I've cut this reference. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "was forced evacuate Huliaipole"
 * Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * provoked a vicious retaliation – "vicious" is in wikivoice here
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Commander in the Red Army:
 * due to the front requiring his attention – Awkwardly worded
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno still respected freedom of the press – This doesn't really add anything since it already says he allowed negative coverage of himself to be published. It gives a sense of puffery.
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * rejecting his demands out of hand – "out of hand" can be cut without changing the meaning.
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Kamenev too was greeted by Makhno and his new wife Halyna Kuzmenko" – We're getting into the nitty gritty of the Bolshevik leadership's thoughts and actions regarding Makhno, but we're glossing over his marriage to another prominent revolutionary?
 * His marriage to Kuzmenko is discussed in the personal life section. Is this a problem? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * the powerful otaman Nykyfor Hryhoriv revolted against the Bolsheviks – MOS:SEAOFBLUE
 * Rectified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Kamenev sent a telegram to Makhno, asking him to condemn Hryhoriv or else face a declaration of war. – This seems like a severe escalation. The impression I got from the previous paragraph was that they weren't great allies but that they were allies nonetheless. Am I missing something?
 * I don't think you're missing anything, and yes this was a significant escalation. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How strong is the sourcing Hryhoriv was antisemitic? Even if it's not a BLP, MOS:LABEL should still be considered. If multiple high quality sources explicitly describe him with the word antisemitic, then it's not an issue. If the sources are less clear on this, then the article should clarify that antisemitism is a charge put against him by Makhno.
 * Just to quote from the sources:
 * (Darch 2020, p. 56);
 * (Darch 2020, p. 57);
 * (Darch 2020, p. 68);
 * (Malet 1982, p. 41);
 * (Malet 1982, p. 138)
 * (Malet 1982, pp. 168-169)
 * (Malet 1982, p. 169)
 * (Peters 1970, pp. 68-69)
 * (Peters 1970, pp. 69-70)
 * (Shubin 2010, p. 174)
 * (Shubin 2010, pp. 174-175)
 * (Shubin 2010, p. 176)
 * (Shubin 2010, p. 179)
 * (Shubin 2010, p. 180)
 * (Shubin 2010, p. 181)
 * (Skirda 2004, p. 125)
 * (Skirda 2004, p. 127)
 * (Skirda 2004, p. 339)
 * I could go on, but I think you get the point. While I understand the drive to be neutral and to properly attribute statements, I think there are times when we ought to say things as they are. Hryhoriv was responsible for antisemitic pogroms and personally expounded a number of antisemitic canards. To avoid saying he was antisemitic would be intellectually dishonest. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that definitely qualifies as "not an issue" to refer to him as antisemitic. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * he was gunned down in his place – Is "in his place" necessary?
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Against the White Army:
 * A lot of this section is about the broader political and military context, with Makhno's role in it only being a secondary subject. This should be limited exclusively to Makhno and then any context that's absolutely essential for the parts about Makhno to make sense.
 * I can make some cuts, but to be honest, I think that the majority of the context included here is necessary. I don't see any points where it deviates substantially from Makhno's biography. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * brought with it attacks against region's Mennonites, notably including – add "the", remove "notably"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * research by Canadian historian Sean Patterson has indicated – The current wording makes it seem like Patterson's understanding supersedes the others. Is it possible for a question like this to have a definitive answer?
 * Patterson's work is the most comprehensive on the subject. Out of the cited sources, he's the only one that actually looked into anti-Mennonite attacks in any real depth. I can re-arrange the sentence, in order to make it seem less conclusive. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest cutting "while" and then making Patterson its own sentence. That way it's not comparing the accuracy, but it makes it clear that this is where the research is at. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I recombined these sentences as I don't see reason to doubt Patterson's conclusions or to attribute them in-line as controversial. czar  12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno refused, and the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee – Needs a comma
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Once recovered, Makhno immediately began – How about "once Makhno recovered, he immediately began"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * wreaking havoc on Bolshevik positions – A little dramatic
 * Replaced with "ravaging", although I'm open to suggestions if that's not neutral enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Ravaging" suggests to me suggests the same connotation as "wreaking havoc". I would use something simpler like attacking, capturing, destroying, etc, depending on what the actual battles looked like. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "attacking". --Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite the outcome of the Starobilsk agreement – It should be clearer what the Starobilsk agreement is referring to
 * Rewritten to hopefully be clearer. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * who greeted him as "fighter of the worker and peasant revolution, comrade [Bat'ko] Makhno" – Is this relevant?
 * Probably not. Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Bolshevik rebellion:
 * which had been reduced to a fifth of its original size and absent its commander – Wording
 * Reworded. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite direct orders from Vladimir Lenin for the Red Army to "liquidate Makhno", the insurgents led a guerrilla campaign in the face of their encirclement. – "Despite" suggests its the Red Army actively choosing not to follow his orders.
 * Reworded. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * consequently splitting up his contingent into a number of smaller detachments and sending them in different directions – Why?
 * Hopefully I've clarified this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * At this time, Makhno was wounded in the foot – How was he wounded?
 * Sources just say he was wounded. I can presume he was shot, but I don't want to add my novel interpretation of the sources in. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * call it off due to comprehensive Red defenses – What makes a defense "comprehensive"?
 * Replaced "comprehensive" with "substantial". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Exile:
 * Red Army attacks followed them – It doesn't feel right to attribute the pursuit to the attacks themselves
 * Reworded as "The Red Army followed them with sustained attacks". How's this? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How severely was he wounded? This makes it sound like a few minor injuries that he could quickly heal from, but it also says that he was literally shot in the neck.
 * He was shot many times during this period, so they were pretty severe. I've attempted to clarify this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why this first paragraph is separate from the Eastern Europe section? Ukraine is considered East European, and Romania sometimes is as well.
 * Don't think so, moved subsection header up. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Eastern Europe:
 * Makhno decided to make a break for Poland – This feels informal
 * Reworded as "decided to flee to Poland". --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno subsequently attempted – Can we cut "subsequently"?
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * he was under close police surveillance and arrested and interrogated – Two ands
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno attempted suicide in April 1924 and was hospitalized by his injuries – A bit morbid, but do we know the attempted method? It might be relevant in context of the type and severity of his injuries.
 * He cut his own throat. Should I include this? I generally don't like being too graphic in the details. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give full details, but the severity of his injuries might be relevant. Do we know how long it took him to recover or whether he was permanently injured? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Source doesn't really go into much further depth. This was just one of many injuries he had sustained at this point, so it would be hard to pin point any one as having a long-term effect. Later in his life, one of his friends described him as effectively being a walking corpse of scar tissue and tuberculosis. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno and his family were allowed to move to the Free City of Danzig. Here, Makhno was swiftly arrested by the Danzig authorities – So he was not actually allowed to do so.
 * They were allowed by the Polish authorities to move there. Attempted to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Makhno's anarchist comrades – Unless "comrade" is an actual rank or title, allies or supporters might be a better word.
 * Replaced with allies. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Paris:
 * because of an old bullet wound in his ankle – Is this the same injury from when he was shot in the foot earlier? If so, the connection should be made.
 * I think so, how can I better connect them? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "from the bullet wound in his ankle that he sustained during the Kronstadt rebellion". But of course this would be if we know that the bullet wound is the same one, since you said above that you couldn't find specifics. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said he sustained it during the war, rather than pinpointing it to a specific moment. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * exacerbated his resentment of those anarchists – The link here seems unnecessary. Links shouldn't be used to comment on or add anything to the sentence.
 * Delinked. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * about the "good old days" in Ukraine – This makes it seem like scare quotes. It should probably just be rewritten in formal language.
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * in a Russian restaurant – Russian cuisine doesn't need to be linked here. This section as a whole has some MOS:OVERLINK issues.
 * Delinked. Are there any other links that strike you as unnecessary? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From the sentence about homesickness, language barrier, and depression, these are probably simple enough concepts that we don't need to need to link them. Maybe language barrier warrants a link, but it could go either way. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delinked. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * with Schwarzbard's subsequent trial bringing to light – idiom
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Later years: Failing health and death:
 * By this time, Makhno was succumbing – By when? This is the start of a new section, so it should give a general idea of where we are now.
 * Clarified. I think this was an artefact of new section header additions. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * to physical and mental illness – Of what types?
 * Physically, his war wounds and tuberculosis; psychologically, he was becoming more isolated, paranoid and irritable. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The physical ailments are covered pretty well, but it would be good to describe the mental aspects more explicitly. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * unsuccessfully attempting to apply for permission – Unsuccessfully attempting to imply suggests she didn't even get to the point of actually implying
 * Oh whoops, yup, I see that. Rewritten slightly. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * also came into a serious personal and political conflict with Volin – This seems relevant to Makhno's life
 * That's why I mentioned it? I'm not sure what you're implying, sorry. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that more detail about it would be good. Do the sources go into more detail about why they were feuding? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye it was due to the synthesis/platformist split. Volin was a leading figure in the former and Makhno in the latter. I think I mentioned this earlier in the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ended up being unsuccessful – How about "were unsuccessful"
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal life:
 * Is there any reason why this isn't integrated into the rest of his biography? Both the main biography and the personal life info would benefit from the context of the other.
 * The personal life section has been separate from his biography since before I started editing the article. While I see how the first two paragraphs could be integrated into the biography, I'm not so sure about the third and fourth ones could. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the last two paragraphs make it tricky. Personal life sections are a common layout choice, so I won't hold it against the article simply for existing. Maybe the last two paragraphs could be moved to the end of "Later years" or somewhere in "legacy", but it's up to you whether to make any changes here. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * After Makhno himself was forced into exile by the invasion of the Central Powers in early 1918, Makhno managed – Two Makhnos
 * Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Legacy:
 * where a statue of the Bat'ko stands – It seems laudatory for the article to address him by his honorific in wikivoice.
 * Neutralised. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In the late 2010s, the Huliaipole City Council was preparing to request – How does one "prepare to request"? Is this still in the works?
 * It was preparing documentation to request the return of his ashes from Paris. This interview was given in 2019. Since then there has been a global pandemic and since early 2022, Huliaipole has been on the front line of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so I think the city council has had greater priorities than the repatriation of Makhno's remains. As far as I'm aware, his ashes are still in Paris. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This should be everything. Let me know if everything has been addressed or if you have any other thoughts about any points here. I'd say take your time on this, but as you know, FAC doesn't really give you that option. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thebiguglyalien: I think I've addressed everything the now! Let me know if there's anything else I can do and I'll see about getting it dealt with. Thanks for the comments, they're very much appreciated, even if this FAC ends up getting archived. :) Grnrchst (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , everything looks pretty good now. The only things that still need attention are ones that I replied to above. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: Ok, I think I've addressed the remaining points. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. There were a bunch of minor issues that needed looking at, but overall the prose here is some of the highest quality on Wikipedia, exceeding most featured articles. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

czar
Thanks for the ping. Based on my peer review and the activity since, this is one of the most impressive articles I've seen researched and written on Wikipedia. I won't let it go archived. Review incoming. czar 13:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm copyediting for concision in the text as I go. Consider the following as rhetorical questions—as long as it's clarified in the text, no necessary need to reply.

Issues of clarity


 * "20 rubles over the course of the summer": What is this detail, in context? Edited
 * "Mennonite-owned estate near Huliaipole": Why is this detail important? Can't we just say he worked on a nearby estate over the summer? Edited
 * "punishment-cell conditions" Does this mean solitary? If so should just say so
 * Aye it means solitary. As it's already mentioned in the previous sentence, I've just changed to "conditions of his cell". --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "He found himself off-balance" His life or his physical locomotion? Assuming the latter and editing
 * Aye it was the latter. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If using the term "libertarian" in the European way, should footnote or otherwise explain the difference to a global audience, lest they think more economic libertarianism than anarchist libertarianism
 * Honestly I'd rather just replace it rather than have a whole footnote just to explain its use for American readers, so I've done so. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "his activism kept him too busy to focus on his marriage" Is this a euphemism to mean that he didn't focus on his marriage at all? Or would it suffice to say that his activism superseded his marriage (and what effect did that have?)
 * The latter. Malet doesn't go into detail about how it affected his marriage though. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Who rallied around the slogan "Land and Liberty"—Makhno, or the local peasants, or another group?
 * Local peasants. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Committee for the Defense of the Revolution ... organized armed peasant detachments" Where? In Huliaipole or elsewhere?
 * Aye in Huliaipole. Is that not clear? The town is specified in the same sentence. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Unclear which era the boundaries in the red map represents. A contemporaneous map from the era or a modern map would be helpful. The numbers aren't very visible in this map and it's missing context of where this rests in modern Ukraine and Russia.
 * Ok, this is the third complaint about the map. I'll try and put a better one together over the next couple days. Bare with me. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czar; @Mujinga; @Thebiguglyalien: Hey all! Thanks to my wonderful partner Kanspits, who is experienced with vector image editing, I have a new map of Makhno's travels to Moscow and back. Hope this better fits the section! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! I personally was thinking more of the overall places of interest, such as the military conflicts in that section, so added a second battle map for that. czar  10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The lede covers more of the Makhnovshchina than Makhno himself. Surely context on the the former is needed, but the lede should still orient around Makhno's life as it's the intro to his biography. Early life and imprisonment, legacy should all be outlined there, even if those parts are subordinate to the current contents.
 * Well this one's on me. When I expanded the article from its original state, I never actually ended up rewriting the lead section. I've done that now, let me know what you think. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I've pared it down to be more about his life (as his biography) and less about his army/movement. czar  23:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would propose that the text "where he learned from Peter Arshinov" be edited to include the answer to the question "What did he learn from Arshinov?" (maybe change this particular phrase back to the way it was written by Grnrchst?) Michalis Vazaios (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed Arshinov's lede mention as lacking detail on its importance in the article. If anything would make more sense to mention his later relationship with Arshinov. czar  15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "The Red Army high command responded by attempting to rein in Makhno's influence over his detachment." What made them turn so fast? Were they responding to his telegram or something else?
 * It was really because they were losing on the Donbas front and were looking for someone to blame. I've attempted to clarify this. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "warrant for his arrest and for him to be tried" Tried for what?
 * This is a reasonable question, but one I find quite funny, as the charges levelled against people by Bolshevik tribunals were often quite spurious and vague. In this case Makhno was accused of being a "criminal" and a "traitor"... --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee declared him to be an outlaw" Last we left off, wasn't he already an outlaw?
 * Aye but it was a different body that declared him one. Previously it was the Bolshevik's Revolutionary Military Council that declared him an outlaw, whereas this time it was ostensibly the Ukrainian government doing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "If one of your masters should ever strike you, pick up the first pitchfork you lay hands on" What is the importance of this quote? If Bat'ko Ivan was influential, better to just say so. This implies that Makhno got his militancy from Bat'ko Ivan. Removed
 * I strongly disagree with this being removed, as it was indeed quite influential on Makhno's ideological development. Per Skirda 2004, p. 19: --Grnrchst (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is it clear that Skirda is being literal with his interpretation, keeping a weapon within reach? It just needs context as otherwise the quote alone sounds like a poetic foreshadowing when what matters most to a reader is knowing how Batko Ivan (and/or that quote in particular) materially influenced Makhno enough to mention in this article. czar  17:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To me, whether or not he kept a weapon on him isn't as important as these being "the first words of rebellion he had ever heard in his life". Cutting out the quote is effectively gutting the moral of the story, so right now it just abruptly ends with Ivan leading the strike. I've added it back in with an attempt to clarify the importance of these words. Let me know if anything still needs changing. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I'm still left wondering why it's important. Did anyone else mention the importance of this quote in his life? I.e., "left a terrible mark" how? It reads like Skirda's rhetorical flourish without some detail on how historians know the quote made this mark. czar  18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Skirda's the only biographer that actually fleshed out this period of Makhno's early life in any depth. Darch, Malet and Peters each spend barely a page on it, while others leave barely a paragraph. It was certainly important enough that Makhno himself emphasised it in his own memoirs of his early life, which is where Skirda is drawing from here. Sorry if I'm being a stickler on this one, it's just always stuck out to me as a pivotal moment in his early development. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm still missing what makes it pivotal. If the source definitively said (and we relayed) that this quote was a pivotal development in Makhno's ethics, then the quote would be self-justifying. We're currently left to infer that and, based on the source, it may or may not be true. czar  10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The first Hryhoriv paragraph is a good example of where it can be made way more concise—how much of this detail with Hryhoriv is important to understanding Makhno's biography. Would it not suffice to say that Hryhoriv led an uprising, the Reds asked Makhno to denounce, Makhno demurred and ultimately denounced Hryhoriv after the pogrom evidence, and the Reds turned on Makhno? With this other detail on how Makhno replied and how Hryhoriv originally wanted to ally, it goes into detail that has more to do with geopolitics than Makhno's personal biography. The timeline also gets fuzzy with when he meets with Hryhoriv later—did he denounce the pograms in May (before Trotsky flipped out) or in July (in-person)?
 * 'still considered the White movement to be the Makhnovists' "main enemy"' Did the article ever explain why?
 * "When Hryhoriv reached for his revolver, he was gunned down by Oleksiy Chubenko." This is missing some key detail from Chubenko's article, that Hryhoriv was taking aim at Makhno? And who was Chubenko (Makhno's diplomat)?
 * "a discriminatory policy": What is this adjective meant to mean?
 * When pursued by the Cossacks towards the end, a map would be helpful for those unfamiliar with the city names

Curiosities


 * Do the Old Style dates need to be in prose or can they go in the footnote?
 * I don't see a problem with it being in the prose, as it's only used the once for his date of birth. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If the birthdate is wrong in sources, it's better to have a footnote with that discussion rather than a hidden comment, as someone is bound to come along and contest it without knowing the context.
 * The full vital range is already covered in the infobox and prose, so can save some space in the lede by removing it
 * Assuming you mean his dates of birth and death, done. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How could someone be "a model student" at the age of eight in a timeframe less than a year (since he goes truant later)? Seems unreasonable as a conclusion.
 * Hrm, perhaps the term "model student" was a bit strong here. Any ideas for neutralising it a bit? For reference, Skirda calls him a "good pupil", but I don't want to copy his words. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "As the years passed" how many years?
 * He was in prison for seven years. Does that need to be specified? --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "When political prisoners were released during the February Revolution of 1917" Why does this need 10 citations?
 * Probably doesn't. I've cut down to eight for now, I'll make further cuts in a bit. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "After spending a few days in the Volga region" Why is this important?
 * Changed to "After passing through the Volga region", it's just to establish the geography of his journey. (Will be better established once I get the map done) --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Was the Battle of Mariupol (1919) not significant enough to be mentioned in Makhno's biography?
 * It only ever gets a passing mention in my sources. Like Darch and Skirda saying "and then Makhno captured Mariupol" before quickly moving on. Honestly the battle of Mariupol was only a small part of the larger battle for the Donbas, so it's not usually worth going into much detail. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Might want to merge those two articles if it's not an independently notable concept then. czar  10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Tagged for merge discussion czar  15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "leaving only a few hundred survivors" If that many remain, how many died in the rout?
 * According to Darch, the insurgents themselves killed 6,000, while 4,000 more were killed by local peasants. Should this be mentioned? It's already in the battle's main article. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was a pivotal military victory, enough to mention that a few hundred survived, then it's worth explaining its magnitude, however best to do so. Otherwise I would remove that a few hundred survived and there's enough context to know it was a major military victory without naming numbers. czar  10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "With southern Ukraine brought almost entirely under insurgent control, the White supply lines were broken and the advance on Moscow was halted." Why does this need eight citations? Surely two or three would be sufficient for these claims? Eight becomes arduous to verify.
 * My instinct with this was that the claims here - a) rapidly bringing half a country under one's control and b) halting a massive enemy offensive on a neighbouring country's capital - are both rather big, and are made even bigger when a direct consequential link is made between the two. So I wanted to make it clear that this was consensus across sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "the Red Army had planned to break the alliance with the Makhnovists" Why? To consolidate power or something more specific?
 * A bit of both really. Skirda 2004, p. 244 points to them desiring to consolidate and maintain power, as they believed they had been appointed with "an historic social mission of capital significance to mankind's future", and thus that the ends justified any methods. Darch 2020, p. 118 points out the upcoming Fifth All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, which the Makhnovists would have been able to participate in under the Starobilsk agreement, and that the Bolsheviks would have wanted to eliminate any potential opposition before it convened. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

czar 17:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC); additions 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 'Lenin questioned him extensively about Ukraine, which Makhno answered, even as Lenin bemoaned that the country's peasantry had been "contaminated by anarchism".' What is the effect of this sentence meant to be? He answered? Is Lenin's response relevant or trivia?
 * Lenin's meeting with Makhno is quite an important moment in establishing the relationship between him and the Bolsheviks. It gets a couple pages in most biographies, a whole chapter in Skirda's and even Makhno himself dedicates it a chapter in his own memoirs. I tried to keep it down to summary style as much as possible, but may not have succeeded too well at that. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it a notable topic in of itself? Then some details could be split off into a separate article that could be linked. The article could give the details on this meeting that are elided here making the sentence not particularly informative. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's independently notable. Just personally, I'd find it a bit odd to write a dedicated article about a conversation between two people. But also, Colin Darch has noted that while it's a notable part of Makhno's biography, Lenin's biographers usually don't cover it. So while I think it's important to bring up here, I don't think it's something that has relevance outside of an article on Makhno. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this article is a biographical overview, would it not suffice to say directly the role this Lenin meeting had on the Makhnovist association with the Bolsheviks? A summative sentence would be more helpful than the nuance/detail of what they discussed, unless that detail is going to be specifically recalled later for great effect. czar  10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Summative thoughts
 * Copyedited the text down some 300 words but it's still a bit lengthy at 59 kB of prose. There are a few paragraphs, particularly on military history, that can be shortened by focusing on Makhno's role rather than the RIAU's play-by-play. My Hryhoriv note above goes into a little example of this. I don't see this as a block of the FAC criteria but it does make the article a more comfortable read, considering that much of that RIAU material can be ably covered within that dedicated article.
 * This said, the article's citation depth is impressive. The thorough GA review (done by a Makhno scholar) was enough for FA status to my eyes, so we're really just cleaning up at this point. Some of the main source advice from that review—to replace Skirda with Darch wherever possible—has been taken up. It does at least seem, however, that Skirda has been bolstered by Darch and other sources rather than necessarily replaced. I noted some citations above that contain more than a handful of citations. Generally only the most controversial of points would need that many citations and even then they would be best accompanied by source quotes at that point, since it becomes so onerous to verify the claim. Generally if two or three sources are sufficient for the point, so are the sources cited in-line beyond that just for redundancy? Those could use some cleanup.
 * Finally my lede comment above stands re: representing the breadth of the article. Otherwise I feel comfortable supporting on prose once these last points are wrapped up. Nice work on bringing the Makhno series of articles out of dusty old tomes and onto Wikipedia.
 * Hi, re this comment, do you feel able to formally support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , there are some unresolved comments above from when you were away for when you have a moment czar  00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, wanted to make sure you saw this czar  22:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters, I've trimmed the most egregious 10-length citation down a little. I'll have a comb through the extra-lengthy citations to see which bits I can afford to trim. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If no one else steps in for the source review, let me know and I'll do it

czar 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Support on prose. I've left some unresolved/outstanding threads above that I feel would improve clarity, but I don't believe they stand in the way of promotion on the general criteria. Excellent, meticulous work! Congrats on this triumph. czar 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes from nominator
This has been a very thorough review and I'm grateful to everyone that has participated. @Mujinga; @Thebiguglyalien; and Czar, you have all given very helpful prose notes and I have tried my best to respond to each of them to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I have not been at my best when doing this. A few days before the coordinators tagged this for archival, spurring me to rush to bring other people in on this, I suffered a pretty bad degradation in my health that has kept me from being as on top of this review as I would have liked to have been. I attempted to press forward, but it hasn't been easy, and now I'm beyond the edge of exhaustion. As much as I would have liked to see this review through to the end, I desperately need to take some time off for the good of my health. I'll still be around for the next 24 hours or so just to round things off, but after that, I need to focus on myself for a few weeks. If that means this review getting failed... well that would be a massive disappointment, but there's nothing I can do about that, unless the coordinators are happy to extend the time limit. C'est la vie. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The source review seems to be the major obstacle before consensus to promote can be reached. If this does end up getting archived, then the current reviewers (including myself) would presumably still support its promotion when you renominate so long as nothing major comes up in a source review. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes although the three prose reviews all look like they are heading towards support, as Thebiguglyalien says there needs to be a source review (also with spotchecks as you are a new nominator) and the image review needs to be wrapped up. I doubt that will happen in 24 hours, so perhaps it's best to withdraw the nom and re-nominate when you have more time/energy? I think it will pass eventually, but IRL stuff is always more important than a website. I've already supported and I would expect to support again in the future. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can do the source review but I'm not sure I can fully turn it around in the next 24 hoursis that a hard, personal deadline? If you need to step away for a bit, the coords will probably close the nomination but really it's just a formality since the re-nom would be starting with three supports. Wishing you the best for your recovery and here to help any way I canjust let me know. There's a lot to be proud of in completing this article and it'll still be here when you get back. czar  23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * With three supports there is no great time pressure from a coordinator point of view. Especially with Czar's offer to do the source review. All seems to be well and this appears to be heading towards a routine promotion in the fullness of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Grnrchst, I note your recent activity on Wikipedia, so I hope you don't mind me giving you a nudge. On a skim, what seems to be outstanding before a coordinator goes through with a view to closing is addressing a couple of outstanding points from the image review, addressing BigUgly's outstanding points, most - or possibly all - of which are in "Summative thoughts", and commenting on Dudley's closing point. If you could manage that and then ping that would be helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild: Bigugly already supported. Did you mean @Czar? Because they haven't been online in a few days, I'm still waiting on responses from them. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, apologies. It is not unusual for them to be inactive for a few days. You have pinged them, so let's see if they get back over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've got support on prose from Mujinga, Thebiguglyalien, Czar and Dudley Miles. I've gotten support on sources from Czar. And I've purged the article's photographs, in order to comply with the image review. Am I done? Or do I need to do more? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

 * In general, as I mentioned above, the majority of the source review already happened in the GA review, which was performed by a Makhno scholar. That the Skirda source should be replaced by Darch in the name of quality ("I agree that Darch is the best English language work out there at the moment") was my main takeaway. And it appears to have been painstakingly applied.
 * I haven't checked diffs for whether Darch is just supplementing Skirda or if the Skirda refs were replaced (which would be my recommendation). But suffice to say that the article is very much packed with refs, which complicate the source verification process. On one hand, they can be seen as bolstering all claims, but the reality is that most claims do not need more than one source (i.e., Darch) for verification unless contentious enough to require two high-quality sources. On the other hand, the chances that someone has the ability (nevertheless inclination) to verify all sources to verify all parts of the claim approaches zero. I highly recommend paring down the number of sources per ref.
 * As mentioned above, almost no claim needs 10 sources in its ref. And if it does, it might as well contain quotes at that point (to aid in verification) if the claim is so contentious.


 * Ref location link formatting should be consistent: Either link all or link none; err towards linking none since so much is already linked in the ref—fixed
 * (Location parameters end up being an anachronism from old citation formats since the identifiers are enough information for finding the accurate volume; having the publisher listed in the book ref is normally enough.)
 * Book ref formatting looks good—made some adjustments where a parameter or two were missing
 * Some editors request removing duplicate identifiers, so where ISBN is the gold standard for books, can remove the other identifiers. OCLC is universally helpful IMO so not touching that, but LCCN is redundant to OCLC—removed

Before I continue with the spot check, what makes the following sources high-quality?
 * Rus-history.com (marked by reviewer script as unreliable)
 * Greydynamics.com
 * Can say the same about most of the loose sources in the Legacy section. The newspaper sources can be presumed okay but there are a lot of blogs and analyses that do not appear to come from vetted sources—are there no better sources available? The bar for sources at FAC is a bit higher ("high-quality" criterion 1c) than the rest of the encyclopedia.
 * Also the refs in the Legacy section can use consistent formatting—some have the location but not others. Looking for general consistency.
 * Some of the books in non-English languages are missing title translations, for consistency (the Russian titles have translations)

czar 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Czar I've translated some of the titles. My Russian isn't good enough to do the ones that remain. Is the "some have the location but not others" still an issue? I only found the one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Refs 329, 330, 338, and the Polish source still need translations (to be consistent with other translated refs). Looks like the Bibliography has locations so all good. czar  16:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Translated the titles. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The quality of the sources in the Legacy section remains the biggest outstanding sourcing issue, per comments above czar  00:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look around for more clearly high-quality sources and get back to you on this. Can you point me to some of the ones that you think look unreliable so I can find better replacements? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ones above: Rus-history.com, Greydynamics.com, and Militant Wire, Popular Front; generally the ones that do not have an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking czar  23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Rus-history.com. I'll have a look at the others and see if I can find anything to replace them. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Grey Dynamics. I wouldn't call them unreliable, as they cite their sources throughout and everything I've seen of them seems to be well-researched. But to be on the safe side, I decided to remove the citations to them, as they're not well-established. I cut the sentence about "Neo-Makhnovist" sympathies, because as far as I'm aware, this term was coined by a South African anarchist-turned-white nationalist for Anarkismo.net and doesn't have much actual use elsewhere. I also cut the thing about green anarchist patches, as it seems to have been sourced from a Twitter post by Jake Hanrahan (in which he uses the fake term "Free Territory" *sigh*). And for the info about "Makhno's bow", I replaced the Grey Dynamics citation with one to the source it was citing - the more clearly reliable Agence France-Presse (mirrored on a partner website). --Grnrchst (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * re: unreliability, for a GA review, it might not come up, but for FAC, the question is what makes it "high-quality" (1c). I think the case is harder to make with this source. czar  22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Went over the Popular Front source, and it appears that Hanrahan ascribes Makhno's influence to Revolutionary Action, without them actually saying it themselves. Cut until I can find a better source. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I ended up cutting the sentence about patches and flags, as I decided it was relatively uninteresting. Militant Wire is a relatively new web publication with unclear reliability, while the other source was a Ukrainian magazine that I've not read before so can't establish its quality. The other place Militant Wire was cited was also already covered by The Guardian, so there was no problem removing it there.
 * I've now cut all the ones you've explicitly highlighted here. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. So same question then for the other publications without clear backing (what makes them high-quality sources for FAC)? Liva.com.ua, Nashfilm.ru (and, to a lesser extent, Evrejskaja Panorama).
 * Separately, a bunch of the refs need cleanup for consistency: some periodicals have ISSNs and others don't, one or two entries have a location or publisher listed while similar entries don't. My suggestion would be to remove the ISSNs from the newspapers and blogs and only use it for journals but ultimately your call as long as it's consistent throughout. Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism is missing identifiers.
 * I also left a note above about claims that have 5+ or even 10 sources listed—is there a reason for doing that or why two or three sources wouldn't have sufficed? czar  22:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed liva.com.ua, nashfilm.ru and evrejskaja panorama, added more ISSN numbers and added the identifiers to Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Will have another look over for standardisation. I'll respond to your note on the larger Sfnm tags separately. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, of the 210 multi-citations currently in the article: 78 are 2-length, 54 are 3-length, 47 are 4-length, 13 are 5-length, 9 are 6-length, 2 are 7-length, 6 are 8-length and 1 is 9-length. I'll start from the longest one and work my way down, leaving ones for claims that I think need more robust sourcing as I go. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I started by deciding to remove inline citations to Kantowicz 1999. Honestly, this citation being in the article still was a relic of a previous version before I had started working on it. It was largely cited in lengthy multi-citations, and its only single citation - to the claim that Makhno was seen as a "social bandit" - wasn't important enough to keep by itself. I've moved the source to further reading, as it may still be worth checking out for some readers. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Making further trims to lengthy citations, I've gone through and cut sources that aren't cited elsewhere within the same paragraph, which I hope will help more with verification. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So far I've brought it down to 13 at 5-length, 11 at 6-length, 4 at 7-length and 3 at 8-length. So at least now they're consistently decreasing in frequency as they get longer. There's a couple cases where I think more citations are justified, but I can try whittling the rest down further. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, any thoughts on this loose source added by a new user during the FAC review? I guess there's no problem with it, but strikes me as odd to add a loose source in for one little detail already covered by others. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim was already sourced sufficiently so agreed with moving it to "Further reading". I can't personally vouch for the journal's reliability but they have a code of ethics and an editorial board of credentialed academics. czar  15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. By eye, the citations look standardized and justifiably reliable. Further source reduction would be a boon for the reader but is optional/beyond the FA criteria. Nicely done. czar 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Spot-check
Can I ask for photos or copies of the pertinent pages of the books mentioned in my list above? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 10: Assuming that Google Books gives the correct pagination, this must be on some other page.
 * 35: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 56: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, mostly fits except which I can't trace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This maybe because of different terms used. In Darch 2020, p. 10: ; in Footman 1961, p. 247: in Malet 1982, p. 3: ; in Palij 1976, p. 70: ; in Peters 1970, pp. 28-29: ; Skirda 2004, p. 34: . --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 61: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 63: Assuming that Google Books gives the correct pagination, this must be on some other page.
 * 71: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 132: OK.
 * 137: OK.
 * 147: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 164: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 180: Don't have access, sorry.
 * Does not support anything, perhaps this citation was confused with the one for the next claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From Skirda 2004, p. 121: --Grnrchst (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 185: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 189: Don't have access, sorry.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 192: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Where is the sabers mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sabers are mentioned in Skirda 2004, pp. 134-135: --Grnrchst (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So in other words, it's something the insurgents shouted rather than did? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does look that way. I've removed the explicit mention of sabers from the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 210: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 250: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * Where is the scout mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Scout is mentioned in Skirda 2004, p. 260: --Grnrchst (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 287: I don't have access to most of the sources.
 * 295: Don't have access, sorry.
 * Checked, fits, is this guy the accepted authority on the question? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 299: Don't have access, sorry.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 311: Don't have access, sorry.
 * Checked, fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Grnrchst is this something you can do so Jo-Jo can perform an adequate check? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ay! Sorry, I missed this. I could provide select quotes from the sources for each of the spot checks? Like for 10 and 63, the pagination is definitely correct and the quotes I'm pulling from are definitely in there. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, such quotes could work. Or if you enable emails or upload somewhere (not Wikipedia), via screenshots, that would be even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll try to get back to you with specific quotes soon. For now, I've found online paginated copies of some of the sources:
 * Avrich 1988
 * Darch 2020
 * Malet 1982
 * Peters 1970
 * Skirda 2004
 * Hope this helps. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Four days late, but it seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Born into a peasant family in the fervor around the 1905 Revolution". This implies that he was born around 1905.
 * Rephrased by Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "he settled in Paris with his widow and daughter". She was his wife not his widow at that point.
 * Rewritten as wife. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno quickly joined the revolutionary fervor". This is ungrammatical, I suggest "joined the revolutionary movement".
 * Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "had been outlawed by the Tsarist authorities". It is unclear what outlawed means in this context. If they were expelled from the area, you should say so.
 * It means they were declared outlaws. Attempted to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Following years of imprisonment, in March 1917, the 28-year-old Makhno returned to Huliaipole". This repeats the previus sentence.
 * Rephrased. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Makhno bore witness to the rising hostilities between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Bolsheviks". "bore witness" normally means in court. Maybe "Makhno witnessed the rising hostilities between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Bolsheviks".
 * Rephrased. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Kamenev too was greeted by Makhno and his new wife Halyna Kuzmenko". You have not said at this point that he had divorced his first wife. This should be clarified.
 * I didn't say they divorced because it didn't happen. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "the powerful otaman Nykyfor Hryhoriv". What is an otoman?
 * Just means commander. Linked to the article for clarity. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Taking his own 2,000-strong detachment north at a pace of 80 kilometers each day". He marched 80 kilometers a day? That is impossible.
 * Because they didn't march, they were on horseback. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to say "north on horseback at a pace". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "After his return home in 1917, the two met and became a couple,[311] living together on a commune where Makhno contributed." "became a couple" is ambiguous. It could mean that they lived together unmarried. If they married you should say so. If they did marry, did they both go on to remarry without divorcing? You should clarify this.
 * Rephrased as "became a couple" as "married". They both remarried, but never formally divorced. I didn't use the word "divorce" because none of my sources use it either.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that they remarried without divorcing should be spelled out. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this needs to be spelled out and I'm not going to be adding any novel synthesis to the article over this. The sources don't say anything about "divorce" so I'm not going to be saying anything about it either. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "The Bolshevik government sent an agent provocateur to entrap Makhno and force his extradition by embroiling him in a plan to launch an insurgency in Galicia." Presumably the Bolshevik government of Ukraine and the entrapment was successful, but both these points should be confirmed.
 * While Galicia was populated by a Ukrainian minority, it was actually thought to be the Russian Bolshevik government that was involved in the plot. Per Darch 2020, pp. 133-134: ; Malet 1982, pp. 185: ; and Skirda 2004, pp. 268-269 In any case, I've clarified this. I'm not sure how to further clarify that this plot was successful in getting Makhno charged by the Polish government, I thought it was already pretty clear. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the sources you quote say that the Bolsheviks were trying to entrap Makhno and not genuinely trying to foment an uprising. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On entrapment, from the same sources... Darch 2020, pp. 133-134: ; Skirda 2004, pp. 268-269: --Grnrchst (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "In the late 2010s, the Huliaipole City Council was preparing to request the return of Makhno's ashes from France, as part of a campaign to attract tourists to the city, declaring Makhno to be part of the city's brand." "preparing to request" sounds odd. Do you mean that they never made the request? If so, I do not think it is worth mentioning.
 * Per Darch 2020, p. 164: It's possible that the process hasn't yet been initiated, or was stalled, as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine have been far more immediate concerns. I can confirm that Makhno's ashes are still in Paris, but I do think it's still worth mentioning, as the repatriation of remains is no small request. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Huliaipole City Council prepared documentation requesting return of Makhno's ashes". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that the article should spell out that Makhno was still married to his first wife when he re-married, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As per my previous response on this issue, none of the sources talk about Makhno and Vasetskaia "still being married". Vasetskaia lost contact with Makhno and assumed him to be dead after a while, with both later remarrying. "Spelling out" that they were "still married", despite sources saying nothing of such a fact, would just be adding novel synthesis based on nothing but assumptions. I'm not going to do that over something so minor. It's not happening. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

could you please have a look at the WP:FAC instructions, and remove all of the templates from tthis page? They are slowing down the entire FAC page from loading. And could you please remind anyone else who is using them to please stop; they are making the entire FAC page inaccessible. Thanks in advance, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed per FAC instructions, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I still need to do anything? Idk, this seems like a problem with transcluding every single review onto a single page. Of course that's going to be unsustainable. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be taking a look shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)