Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012.

List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s

 * Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my first nom in a while. --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

With all the remodeling that has occurred in the past weeks, I'm not sure how or why some of the changes ended up as they did, so I'll ask again here: Sorry for throwing in the new items about See also links and Demichev's first name. As you can perhaps tell, I'm having trouble supporting the nom without reservation, although I do see it as much improved. TIAYN, I appreciate your patience and continued efforts. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done I'm still uncomfortable with the repeated citations for How the Soviet Union is Governed in the General references section. Why not just "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231" as I suggested above?
 * Done (added them to the lead) What happened to the notes about who can vote? Did you decide those are no longer important? It seems that you could add some explanatory text right after the List of members heading, so the reader has an idea of the significance of the two tables.
 * Done (I really cant solve the table issue; Its stil a puzzle for me why it didn't work in the first place) Im also still a bit unsure about the separation of tables. I know it's more accessible, and it's technically cleaner in terms of semantic mark-up, but now we have doubled-up entries. Perhaps a mention of this right before the tables (like after the voting rights explanation above), explaining that X candidate members later became full members, and therefore appear in both tables, while the rest didn't (Y of them were shot, maybe, and Z of them just died in office; poor Demichev was in there for 24 years as a candidate and never made full member (do we know why?), although he was there the latest of any of these guys).
 * Done Speaking of Demichev, this page calls him Peotr, but the WP article is titled Pyotr Demichev. There's a redirect, but does this need correcting?
 * Done (added two templates; one which has existed for a while, and another long-needed template for the CPSU)Would some See also links be appropriate, say to List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s or ? Or is there a nav template? (If there isn't one, please don't make a template just to pass FLC; I'm just mentioning the idea as an alternative or supplement to See also links).
 * For some weird reason this guy is not responding, what should I do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fails criterion 3b. Considering how the main article stuffs essentially the same data into a single graphic, I'd expect much more detail here. Either expand, or merge.  Good raise  00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a list... I'll expand the Politburo article just as I will expand the Central Committee article (which I am doing).. A user is for some weird reason bent on adding the old table. + Is this a good enough reason for opposing a list? It seems a bit random! --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * + that graf (which you saw) is factually inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with the nominator. We have 9 lists, and merging them all into one article is absurd.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Agree with Pumpkin, I see no issue with 3b for this one. Everything seems in order to me. GRAPPLE   X  02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Doesn't seem too bad otherwise. Matthewedwards : Chat  14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done From 1955 to 1964 and from 1964 to 1982 the Politburo was chaired by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev respectively is oddly worded. As I read it the first time I wondered what had happened in 1964 for there to be a stop and a start, and I think it's because it's in the passive voice. "Nikita Khrushchev chaired the Politburo from 1955 to 1964; Leonid Brezhnev succeeded him that year and chaired until 1982." is active but there are more deft ways of saying it.
 * Done What's with the past-future tense in the caption? Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and would chair the Politburo until 1982. What's wrong with "Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and chaired the Politburo until 1982."?
 * Done 17 October–31 October 1961 is made up of two elements, "17 October" and "31 October". Because they're spaced, you need spaces between the dash. If you did "17–31 October 1961" though (because the span is within the same month and you don't have to repeat it) you wouldn't space the dash
 * Done Alexander Shelepin, the Chairman of the State Control Commission, Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers. should have semi colons after each position, rather than commas. So "....Chairman of the State Control Commission; Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine; and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman...."


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.