Template:Did you know nominations/Khrushchev: The Man and His Era

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Khrushchev: The Man and His Era[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Cindamuse (talk). Self nominated at 15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

  • Interesting article, long and new enough. Hook is fine, with ref. Non-free photo. Article mainly appears to be in accordance with core policies; however I question the "synopsis" section which has 7 paragraphs and only one reference, as I can see. I somewhat feel that part of the synopsis more give the story about Khrushchev that about the book. Not having written any article on books myself, I am a bit unsure how the standard and rules for presententing such a synopsis is. In the reception section, I think one quote from NYT "fully lives up to the and his era of the subtitle" may be slightly unclear to the reader due to lack of context (In the NYT article itself the quote doesn't appear unclear, due to the start of the paragraph there). I think the point maybe could be stated in article's own words, and skipping the quote. There is a tendency to a bit much direct quotes in the reception section, imo. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi there! I don't think we've crossed paths before. Thanks for taking a look at this article. I went and edited the sentence from the NYT. I agree it was kinda wonky. Take a look and let me know what you think. As far as guidelines for writing book articles, you can find more information here. Further information about writing a synopsis can be found here. As far as citations for a synopsis, the book itself serves as a primary source for the content. However, when interpretation or analysis of the book is offered, we are required to provide a secondary source, such as where you see the citation in the synopsis section. Let me know if you have any other questions. If I don't get back to you, please feel free to send an email. I am still recovering from major surgery, so I'm not as chipper as I usually am. If you send an email, I will get an alert on my phone. Thanks again. Hope you're having a great weekend, Cindy(talk) 03:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi Cindymuse and thanks for notifying me. The reception section is now fine. Thanks also for pointing me to the essay about plots for fiction books; I was aware of it but still a bit unsure about how that guideline relates to the general rule for use of primary sources. I don't personally have any problem with the article's synopsis section, it appears to be an adequate summary and a good read, but as I am not 100% sure about the application of the rules for the need of sources here, I think it's better to make someone else make this call. Hopefully they won't see any problem and the further evalution will go smoothly.(I have a little special interest in learning and understanding the rules for non-fiction books, as I am myself considering writing articles about a couple of political books; that's part of why I got interested in your article.) Sorry to hear about your health problems, hope you recover well from your surgery and will have a fine summer.
        • Hey there! I appreciate your interest in the article. While your interest is focused on political books, mine is on award-winning books. I want to invite you to join the the WikiProject for books or the WikiProject for politics. They really are a tremendous source of help. Again, thanks for your interest in the article. Hope our paths cross again. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, someone else evaluate this article (is the synopsis section ok without secondary sources?) Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hey Cindy, I am in the process of reviewing your article but I noticed that according to DYK's QPQ check you have have 9 DYK credits to your name which would necessitate a QPQ review in order for the DYK to proceed further. AgneCheese/Wine 23:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
While we're waiting for the QPQ, here are a few other things I noticed about the article.
  1. This line from the second paragraph of the Synopsis section seems incomplete "In January 1934, Khrushchev his mentor, Lazar Kaganovich as the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Moscow."
  2. Additionally, in the 3rd paragraph is this awkward line "Following Stalin's death in 1953, there was a power struggle, from which Khrushchev, emerged as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, serving in that capacity until 1964." It probably would be best for this entire section to get an additional look from an copy edit angle.
  3. The line "In 1962, the Soviet Union came to the defense of Cuba, following a failed attempt by the US to overthrow the Cuban regime in the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Project." from the 7th paragraph of the synopsis section is a little problematic from a POV angle. The phrase "came to the defense of Cuba" offers a strong, singular POV opinion on the Cuban missile crisis and should be clarified if this is from Taubman or (presumably) Khrushchev's viewpoint.
  4. In both the lead and Research is the claim that the book was "the first in-depth biography of Khrushchev" but I can't seem to find support for that claim (without needing to some WP:SYNTHESIS) in either of the two reference citations (FN#4 from the Guardian review & FN#5 from the New York Times review) that follow the claim in the Research section.
  5. I find the hooks that mention the interview with family members most intriguing but while the sources say that Taubman conducted "70 personal interviews" it doesn't necessarily say that it was with 70 different family members. It's very possible that some of these 70 interviews were follow-up interviews with family members that were previously interviewed before. For me, part of the "wow" factor in those hooks was the thought that Khrushchev has 70 living family members willing to be interviewed so I would greatly appreciate if a little more research and clarification could be invested to see if that angle does pan out.
As for Iselilja's concern, DYK rule D2 states that synopsis/plot summaries do not require inline citations so we're okay there but these other issues will need to be addressed. AgneCheese/Wine 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look at this article. I appreciate the feedback! I revised the hook in response to Q5. (Thanks for catching that.) Let me know what you think.
Your Q4:
  • Article: "the first in-depth biography of Khrushchev"
  • Guardian: "Taubman's book is by far the best and most thorough contribution to understanding Khrushchev's personality and politics ever written"
  • NYT: "Although eminently worthy of a serious biography, Khrushchev until now has been the subject of rather thin Kremlinological exegeses. In Khrushchev: The Man and His Era, which took almost two decades to research and write, William Taubman, a professor of political science at Amherst College, finally gives us what we (and Khrushchev) deserve: a portrait unlikely to be surpassed any time soon in either richness or complexity."
  • I think I've appropriately addressed your questions. As far as the QPQ, of the nine DYKs listed, five were nominated by other editors. I didn't have anything to do with creating the Jamila M'Barek article or nominating it for DYK. I have only nominated four articles (total) for DYK. Again, let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 03:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your prompt response and will re-review the article. As for the QPQ, the DYK criteria (item #5) states that any editor with 5 or more credits must complete a QPQ. It doesn't matter how you got those credits (by self nom or via someone else's nomination, etc) only that you had some connection to an article featured on DYK. If you were at around 5-7 combined credits, I could see asking for an WP:IAR exception but since this would be your 10th DYK credit and we do have a bit of a backlog of unreviewed noms, I kindly would ask that you consider completing a QPQ review. AgneCheese/Wine 03:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... There appears to be a bit of ambiguity in the DYK guidelines and what constitutes a "credit". The edit notice above, states that QPQ comes into play for nominators who have five or more DYK credits and are nominating their own articles. See this link, which reflects on hits returned by the DYKUpdateBot: "not all nominations are credited in this way and the bot also credits DYK creations and expansions, not just nominations." In essence, the bot may return more hits than DYK nominations, as is the case with the results you have indicated. Editors "who are nominating an article created or expanded by someone else, or who have made fewer than five DYK nominations, are not required to do another review." I've only made four nominations. Thoughts? Let me know if you have other questions. Cindy(talk) 06:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As it looks like the issue of QPQ requirements needs to be clarified, I opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Clarification_on_QPQ--What_counts_as_a_DYK_credit and will, unfortunately, need to put this nomination on-hold until that it is clarified. AgneCheese/Wine 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I totally understand! No worries here. In any event, I sincerely appreciate your time here. Your work is appreciated. Sometimes, it becomes frustrating hearing contradicting guidelines and/or interpretations of the guidelines. I think (speaking for myself), it will help to be on the same page (so to speak) going forward. Hope you have a great day! Cindy(talk) 13:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I find that hooks are most effective when the target article is the first link, so I am suggesting an ALT2 for consideration. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
for Alt2 (which I agree with Ed is a bit better) It looks like the QPQ discussion at WT:DYK is going to get hopelessly lost again without any concrete resolution so I'm not going to hold this nom up any longer. I appreciate the work you made implementing the previous changes and everything is good to go. AgneCheese/Wine 16:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Khrushchev:_The_Man_and_His_Era&oldid=1189658219"