Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikita Khrushchev


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Closed as not promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... The Ed17 was kind enough to suggest I list it here, as there are several military episodes in Khrushchev's career, to say nothing of the military crises during his premiership. This article is headed to FAC in due course, and I'd like it to have a severe test before I subject such an important article to FAC.Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - You wanted a "severe test", so I'll give you one. from the top


 * Superb work and fanatical research! Cam (Chat) 22:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will have responses to this within a couple of days. Perhaps on the casualty figures it would be best if I went to other than a non-Khrushchev bio.  I'll get to the rest I hope tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sourcing. "K blows top" wow... what a... marketing driven title. anyway
 * Alright. The issues with the first half have been resolved. When I have time this week, I'll go through the next half for round two. Cam (Chat) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing
 * NIB (Not in bibliography): ^ Schwartz, Harry (1971-09-12), "We know now that he was a giant among men", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
 * NIB: ^ Shabad, Theodore (1970-11-24), "Izvestia likens 'memoirs' to forgeries", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
 * NIB: ^ "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
 * NIB: ^ "Vast Riddle", The New York Times, 1953-03-10, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
 * NIB: ^ a b c Birch, Douglas (2008-08-02), "Khrushchev kin allege family honor slurred", USAToday, retrieved 2009-08-14
 * NIB: ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Whitman, Alden (1971-09-12), "Khrushchev's human dimensions brought him to power and to his downfall", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
 * Sourcing shows a Full Text On Net bias. Sourcing shows a US source bias.
 * Where are the scholarly journal articles? Where are the scholarly edited collections? This is a key failing in the article as written.
 * WP:MILMOS#SOURCES not met. Wouldn't meet Featured Article 1c as it lacks a full survey of the highest quality sources available (no scholarly journal article search conducted).
 * Other
 * Tompson 1995 seems unable to carry the paragraph on Hungary 1956. Ordering problems here, Eastern European foreign policy section relates primarily to Khrushchev's early rule.  This, "Meanwhile, Soviet leaders were debating whether to intervene to ensure communist rule, with Khrushchev favoring intervention." in particular does not represent the current research, or sadly mischaracterises a confusing situation, which is contained primarily in journal articles.
 * Citations in general seem underweight compared to claims.
 * Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. I'll see if I can find some journal articles.  If you have suggestions, I'd be grateful if you'd leave them on mine or the article talk page.  Is it your feeling that all news article used as citations should be in a bibliography?
 * And Carlson's book is definitely popularly driven, but it seems accurate and well sourced. I have found no contradictions with other materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Popular works are fine when they are accurate and well sourced (and I didn't expect otherwise), I was just ridiculing his really really horrible marketing forced title, also... his publisher's LackOfSpaces and name triggers warnings; but I'm glad those warnings aren't worrisome. When you're relying on a newspaper article as heavily as you are with Whitman (1971) I really suspect you should add it to the bibliography.  With articles which only receive a single citation, I would expect only the Newspaper to be in the bibliography.  I'd recommend starting with google scholar, and trying to find review articles in history journals, these cover the debate amongst historians.  Also check the publications of research institutes such as http://www.wilsoncenter.org/  (CWIHP)... Hoover are also good.  Central European University should have someone. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take some looks. I'll move the Schwartz article to biblio, it was a major feature article the day after death (no doubt in the can and waiting for K to finally conk).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a better google book source on Budapest here. I'm still looking on scholarly journal articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fursenko, already in the biblio, has some excellent material on Budapest and is 2006 published. I'll look for anything more recent, but I think we are doing OK here.


 * Oppose. Without really doing much more than skimming this, I can tell you right away that significant work is needed on sourcing.  Too few of the many available sources are used, and the result is a more or less one-dimensional picture of someone with many dimensions.  I imagine that you do not read Russian, which causes some difficulties with the research, but there are many English language sources you have neglected.  Certain sections are also woefully underdeveloped.  In particular, I would suggest.
 * More attention to the Cuban Missile Crisis (Carribean Crisis) as this was surely one of the most significant moments of his life. An incredible number of words have been written on the crisis, so I suggest either Michael Dobbs's One Minute to Midnight or Mark White's Missiles in Cuba as they provide reasonable biographical perspectives.  Michael Beschloss's The Crisis Years is also an excellent study with important insights.
 * More attention is needed to contemporary primary sources to provide flavor; the use of memoirs is a poor substitute for things written at the time. I would direct your attention to the recently released collection of the Kennedy-Krushchev letters.
 * Other sources that you simply must consult: Mayday: Eisenhower Krushchev and the U-2 Affair. Krushchev: A Career, while Crankshaw may not be the most recent scholar, his work is highly influential.  Any of the various collections of his speeches should also be consulted.
 * Finally, although it is a somewhat more controversial technique of biography, I think you will find that the consultation of contemporary newspaper accounts and his newspaper obituaries will add another dimension to the portrayal.
 * Also, the prose needs significant work. Sentences like "The agreement that the United States would not invade Cuba has been adhered to." are just absolutely awful.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 October 2009


 * The thing is, this is not an article about the Cuban missile crisis. This is a summary-style article about Khrushchev.  I feel the need to be very cautious about overstressing certain aspects of Khrushchev's career (U-2, cuban crisis) when dedicated articles are available.  Note that the treatment of the Missile Crisis in the Khrushchev article is longer than the one in the Kennedy article! Contemporary newspaper articles about Khrushchev are useful, but I used few, because the papers knew little about what was going on.  However, I will look at the sources you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This isn't a comprehensive biography of Krushchev, it is an encyclopedia article. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  13:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Summary style. That is the key here.  The article is approaching 120K and I've been worried about length.  The only things I intend to adopt from the IP are the "bit more flavor", perhaps a little more on Khrushchev's character mixed into things and a slight expansion on the missile crisis.  Not more than 2 to 3 sentences though.  Getting into the fine details of it must be left for the CMC article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting to Fifelfoo's points, I've moved the Whitman article to the biblio. Since only one other article is used as many as three points, and that for a very small part of the article, I don't see the point in adding it to the biblio.  I did run a seach at the Wilson Center and found nothing very interesting, and I looked at Google scholar as well.  Given that the archives are long out there now, is there really much cutting edge scholarship on Khrushchev in terms of articles?  I did not see anything that made me want to order it or buy access, and I've bought about 10 books on Khrushchev since I've started on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One other point, the Eastern European being mostly about Khrushchev's early years in power. Note that the discussion of the Berlin crises is under the US area.  I imagined that this was the crucial area of the article for many readers and put as much as possible there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

I spot-checked and copy-edited "Donbas years". I'm confused about Party or party, but instinctively prefer the p unless it's clearly a title. Some of my changes will need your scrutiny; please revert them if they're wrong. I'd like to see an independent copy-edit of this, which would certainly be required before submitting to FAC, if that is the intention. However, it's already looking good.

Just a few random things I noticed: tiny images? I've boosted a few. Please note the changes in the implied norm of default image sizes. Wondering about the "aftermath" image in terms of relevance and ? which city? in the caption. Mao pic looks over-exposed; any chance of fiddling with the commons file? No final period if just a sentence fragment, such as the UN. Even that pic could be a little larger. Soviet–US relations needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Couple of year ranges need similar fixing. You really want the dot at the end of each of the notes? They're not sentences. No big deal, though. Tony  (talk)  10:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) PS Likewise, you'd do everyone a favour by cropping the Commons file of the Ulbricht pic, which is weird in composition. Tony  (talk)  10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on these today. I guess it is OK to play with Bundesarchiv photos, so long as you don't crop out the text.  I won't replace the original, though.  I'll seek a ce at some point in this process, may wait until this wraps up unless it is the barrier against getting A class.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I'm finishing up on these.  Yes, that his how I was told to do the notes and it would be too much of a pain to change them.  I swapped for a different K/Ulbricht photo instead.  It's Stalingrad of course, I've made that clear.  Basically, with some of the images getting axed for copyright reasons, I went looking for the best Stalingrad image I could find, just to have something to break up the wall of text.  I think all that is resolved, except the copyedit which I will have done as stated above.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - great article, kind of forgot about the review though. Two minor comments on the NYT refs: I'd prefer a full date (i.e. 10 March 1953) becuase they are easier to read, and I don't believe that an access date is needed because the URL is stable. Also an image comment: perhaps freely licensed images could be found of Lazar Kaganovich, Boris Pasternak and/or a Soviet farm for the "Return to Ukraine", "Liberalization and the arts" and "Agricultural policy" sections? — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.