![]() | Pyotr Masherov has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 28, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article claimed that "Masherov published a book in which he openly criticized Soviet leadership as arrogant and conceited. The book showcased his dedication to Marxism Leninism and his opposition to Brezhnev." While there isn't much info on it in English, its name was Sovetskaya Belorussiya (aka Soviet Belarus, confusingly also the name of a newspaper at the time) and what info I was able to find argued that the book contained a veiled criticism of Brezhnev's personality cult and consolidation of power (as opposed to the principle of collective leadership sought after Stalin died.) The basis of this speculation is because Masherov mentions "Comrade Brezhnev" relatively little and there's no passages dedicated to praising Brezhnev. It's entirely possible that was the case, but it certainly isn't open criticism nor necessarily evidence of "dedication to Marxism Leninism." Not to mention the idea that a book published in the Brezhnev-era USSR could openly denounce Brezhnev is absurd. Hence I removed the paragraph, which has no source. -- Ismail ( talk) 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Raymond Kestis ( talk · contribs) 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be your GAN reviewer. I will be using the template below. Ray 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Follows MOS guidelines. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
1b. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
The result was: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk)
16:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mupper-san ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Pyotr Masherov has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 28, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article claimed that "Masherov published a book in which he openly criticized Soviet leadership as arrogant and conceited. The book showcased his dedication to Marxism Leninism and his opposition to Brezhnev." While there isn't much info on it in English, its name was Sovetskaya Belorussiya (aka Soviet Belarus, confusingly also the name of a newspaper at the time) and what info I was able to find argued that the book contained a veiled criticism of Brezhnev's personality cult and consolidation of power (as opposed to the principle of collective leadership sought after Stalin died.) The basis of this speculation is because Masherov mentions "Comrade Brezhnev" relatively little and there's no passages dedicated to praising Brezhnev. It's entirely possible that was the case, but it certainly isn't open criticism nor necessarily evidence of "dedication to Marxism Leninism." Not to mention the idea that a book published in the Brezhnev-era USSR could openly denounce Brezhnev is absurd. Hence I removed the paragraph, which has no source. -- Ismail ( talk) 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Raymond Kestis ( talk · contribs) 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be your GAN reviewer. I will be using the template below. Ray 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Follows MOS guidelines. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
1b. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
The result was: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk)
16:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mupper-san ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)