6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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: February 22, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 16, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: -- Ruling party ( talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This interests me a great deal. I recently wrote about the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and another article about the Lao communists. I will have a review for you by the end of the day. Before I started the review, I made a quick copyedit to fix the language. Please take a look at my edits @ Tomobe03:-- Ruling party ( talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is really up to you @ Tomobe03:. This is an interesting article, and I hope you chose to continue working on it. If you do, I will assist by copyediting the text :)
Give me a signal on what you plan to do! -- Ruling party ( talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time and effort to review the article.
Regarding the KPJ/SKJ abbreviations - the party formally changed its name (and abbreviation) at the congress, and the change is noted in the prose. It would therefore be incorrect to use only one abbreviation.
I'll respond on other issues you have raised shortly.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ruling party:, I had to check there for a moment, but it seems to me that some of the complaints are not consistent with WP:WIAGA, i.e. GA criteria. You obviously have a very good understanding of the article topic, but (at least some of) the issues you raise are more likely needed for FA than GA. For instance, there is no requirement in the GA criteria regarding article being too short.
There certainly is room for some improvement, but per WP:SUMMARY, the content meant for the article on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia should not be repeated here.
Also, I'm fine with addition of redlinks IF they meet general notability criteria, but I'm far from convinced that "6th Executive Committee" meets WP:GNG.
I agree that the things you brought up would improve the article, but I'm not quite sure that these may be required at this (GA) level. For example, look at the What the Good article criteria are not essay which says "Good articles are "satisfactory" or "decent" articles, not great articles. The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria."
On the other hand, I would hate to see a nominating editor (i.e. me) directing the reviewer in any way because that would be wrong. In conclusion, I don't think there is any point in pursuing further. I'll revise the article at some point to address some of the issues you raised. Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Notability of the 6th exec comm has nothing to do with notability of the 19th politburo of the CPC (see WP:OTHER).
As I said, maybe it's better to let this one go, at least for the time being.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm grateful for your helpful pointers what is missing in the article. Some of them can be addressed from limited reliable sources on the topic, some cannot. However, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with a review pointing out some of the issues should be overlooked because they probably belong to FA (as you also noted above) and not GA because there are always questions where broad scope ends and comprehensive begins. That would be as if the nominator is deflecting and directing the review instead of the reviewer - and that should not happen. Other editors are welcome to offer their opinion, but it ultimately must be up to you as the reviewer: If you feel the scope is too narrow, or that any other criterion is far from met, you are more than justified to fail the nomination.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
To clarify - I'm withdrawing the nomination for the above reasons (per
WP:GAN/I#N3).--
Tomobe03 (
talk) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, as per WT:GAN, I do have some additional thoughts. First, I think whilst the above does show that more could be made, I don't think the article isn't suitably broad. It's worth mentioning that BROAD simply means that it covers all the basics, not that it's a comprehensive study. That said, I do worry that a novice reader (such as myself) would have some issues understanding what is being talked about here. I'd suggest tightening up the lede a bit, and having a better introductory para.
Thanks for the comments. RL stepped in - I hope to be back editing (and responding to your comments) tomorrow-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed a few of the above issues, but I'd need some more info about the building issue (see above). Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Added info on the building too.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The title is capitalised per MOS:TITLECASE. The ordinal number 6th is spelled out per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:SPELL09. If you think the article should be named differently, there is always the process to propose to move the article to a new name - but that has nothing to to with GA review. Ruling party, do you have any specific MOS issue that could be addressed?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ruling party, I find it problematic that you say things like "I still don't consider this a good article" instead of pointing to a specific actionable mismatch with GA criteria, and ask should a number be spelled or word capitalised instead of pointing to a specific MOS rule the article is not in compliance with. This way it seems you are judging the article on subjective rather than objective criteria. In the above review you have mainly complained about breadth of scope and after disagreeing with me, you went to get a 3rd opinion. It seems to me you got one opinion supporting my view re scope. You have complained about spelling out the number 6 and/or title capitalisation and I have just pointed out relevant MOS rules supporting present solutions. Other than that I'm left with your view that this is not a GA for unspecified reasons. -- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ruling party have you even taken time to review the GA criteria - specifically criteria 3a and 3b (at WP:WIAGA)? Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion if you are perfectly willing to proceed on a personal whim instead? I am aware that this is your first review ever and that everyone has to learn sometime, but I see no point in stubbornly ignoring established review criteria because (as you pointed out above) you think you know better. As stated above, you have not pointed out any GA criteria mismatch except complaining about the scope of the article and then ignored the 3rd opinion you solicited on your own initiative. (Including the GAN talk advice from uninvolved editors to which your reply was "Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently".) Since I cannot determine what is your personal preference for the scope except that some of it (as you said above) really belongs to FA, I see no point in dragging out this utterly unhelpful review. Please fail this article already so it could be reviewed later on objective criteria.
Lee Vilenski thank you very much for your remarks. Even though your opinion was rejected by the reviewer, I feel that the article improved as a result of yourpinput. -- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Eight days have gone since the reviewer has posted any actionable comment or indeed failed the review as threatened on multiple occasions. Can I assume the reviewer has abandoned/withdrawn from the review?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ ( talk · contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this GAN. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
put on the shelf- that means "delayed; put on hiatus". I think you mean something like "superseded; replaced" but I want to be sure.
The congress adopted two resolutions – on the role of the SKJ and submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission.- This sentence confuses me. Does it mean that the two resolutions both related to the role of the SKJ? If so, I would get rid of the dash and explain what the two resolutions were. If it means something else, you might want to just reword the sentence.
Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet.- I think a word is missing here.
I'll have more to say later. Until then, thanks for your persistence with this article. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
they instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress...
Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet threat- the sources (Haig at 139 and Lilly at 213) seem to indicate that it was Stalin's death that reduced the Soviet threat, thereby making further democratization unnecessary. The article seems to suggest that Tito cut back on democratization to reduce the Soviet threat. Am I reading the sources correctly?
The sixth congress also signalled a decline in critical discourse.- you might want to elaborate on that. Why did this decline occur?
Further comments to come. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Territorial basic organisations were set up to replace the Communist Party of the Soviet Union-styled party cells.Was this just a new name or was it a substantive change? If the former, I'd clarify it; if the latter, I'd briefly explain what the difference was.
It re-elected Tito as the General Secretary of the SKJ- The linked article says that the Central Committee appointed him to this position, not the congress. What do your sources say? I can think of a number of possibilities.
The party Articles- are these the same as "the party charter" mentioned in the subsequent paragraph? If so, you might want to use the same term (charter is clearer, in my view) and/or move the sentences together.
Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The party charter specified that basic organisations- This paragraph just seems a bit out of place - it doesn't seem to pertain to any particular decision of the 6th congress - and I'm not sure how much of it is ultimately necessary to understanding the post-6th congress changes. Perhaps it would be better to just eliminate this paragraph (sorry) and change the aftermath section to say something like "Seeking to reduce bureaucracy, lower-level party officials consolidated the functions of smaller organisations (known as party cells) into larger local and municipal districts." You could then provide some of the additional background in an explanatory note, which would then at least be adjacent to the relevant content. This may not be strictly speaking necessary for GA purposes, but I think it would be helpful nonetheless.
There, the central committee instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress.- Any specifics? A reader might be interested in the particular policies reversed. (Of course, don't worry if the sources don't say.)
The article is thanks to you making good progress, and we should be able to finish this up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The most significant turnaround was in relation to the proclaimed...- the wording here is a bit confusing: it's not immediately clear what change actually occurred. Might I suggest something along the lines of "Most significantly, the committee began to backtrack on the congress's plans for a reduction in the SKJ's role in government and for a gradual "withering of the state". Furthermore..." (That sentence might be a bit unwieldy, so by all means feel free to adapt it as you like.)
...the role of constituent republics and status of various peoples in Yugoslavia.The page you cite doesn't seem to discuss this: it looks like the section on federalism starts on page 140. While you're at it, you might consider elaborating on the nature of the debate, i.e. trying to reconcile a desire for increased national unity with a need for equality among the republics/ethnic groups.
The congress adopted two resolutions – one on the tasks and the role of the SKJ and another on endorsing all reports submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission.I'm not sure if we really need to know about the second resolution: it doesn't look like it had any lasting significance, being more procedural than anything else. What do your sources say about the first resolution? I presume it endorsed the ideals that you discussed in the first paragraph of the "decisions" section (e.g. director into educator; minimizing bureaucracy), but if the sources don't mention it we of course can't include it. But if the sources permit it, it would be useful to clarify what precisely this resolution involves.
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The congress approved workers' self-management and the change of policy led to a wider discussion about the nature of Yugoslav federalism...- this seems to suggest that workers' self-management specifically led to the discussion on federalism. Is that what you meant? By the way, you might consider adding a bit more to the lead (e.g. on reducing bureaucracy and disapproving of religious activities) in light of the substantial expansions to the body of the article.
By introducing workers' councils in late 1949...- This is a long sentence, and it might be more readable if you split it into two.
...although it was explicitly noted that the autonomy would allow them full independence- do you mean that the autonomy would not allow them full independence? If you do mean "would allow", you might say something like "although it was promised..."
instructed the party members to control the councils...difficult to replace managers.It's not really clear who these councils and managers are. Could you clarify?
The SKJ deemed the national question solved and did not address the inter-republican relations as the national question or a potential point of contention.The wording here is a bit off - I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. I think something just needs to be reworded.
I think we pretty much have all necessary content included now. Once a few issues with the prose are resolved, we'll be good to go. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, the basic party organisations.... In the lead, where technical wording is discouraged, you might just write "local party organisations".
Yes, that's only one comment. I'll run through the references and give the article another thorough read-through, which should enable me to promote the article. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
However, some of the sixth congress's adopted resolutions were reversed when relations with the Soviet Union were normalisedis followed immediately by
The congress approved workers' self-management.... Jumping back and forth between the congress's actions and the aftermath probably could confuse the reader. Perhaps you could just go through and make sure that each sentence in the lead is in the same order as its corresponding section in the body?
The congress approved workers' self-management...- this is a long sentence, and it probably ought to be broken up. You might send the part about workers' self-management up to the previous paragraph (which would help deal with the issue above) while keeping the rest of it where it is.
...by keeping Yugoslavia neutral in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.- the cite should be to page 140, I believe.
While I certainly hope you implement these suggestions, the truth of the matter is that the article meets the GA criteria as-is. I thus am content to pass the article at this time, for the reasons elucidated below. Your impressive work on this article is to be commended, and I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
In my judgment, this article meets the GA criteria.
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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: February 22, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
6th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 16, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: -- Ruling party ( talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This interests me a great deal. I recently wrote about the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and another article about the Lao communists. I will have a review for you by the end of the day. Before I started the review, I made a quick copyedit to fix the language. Please take a look at my edits @ Tomobe03:-- Ruling party ( talk) 12:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is really up to you @ Tomobe03:. This is an interesting article, and I hope you chose to continue working on it. If you do, I will assist by copyediting the text :)
Give me a signal on what you plan to do! -- Ruling party ( talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time and effort to review the article.
Regarding the KPJ/SKJ abbreviations - the party formally changed its name (and abbreviation) at the congress, and the change is noted in the prose. It would therefore be incorrect to use only one abbreviation.
I'll respond on other issues you have raised shortly.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ruling party:, I had to check there for a moment, but it seems to me that some of the complaints are not consistent with WP:WIAGA, i.e. GA criteria. You obviously have a very good understanding of the article topic, but (at least some of) the issues you raise are more likely needed for FA than GA. For instance, there is no requirement in the GA criteria regarding article being too short.
There certainly is room for some improvement, but per WP:SUMMARY, the content meant for the article on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia should not be repeated here.
Also, I'm fine with addition of redlinks IF they meet general notability criteria, but I'm far from convinced that "6th Executive Committee" meets WP:GNG.
I agree that the things you brought up would improve the article, but I'm not quite sure that these may be required at this (GA) level. For example, look at the What the Good article criteria are not essay which says "Good articles are "satisfactory" or "decent" articles, not great articles. The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria."
On the other hand, I would hate to see a nominating editor (i.e. me) directing the reviewer in any way because that would be wrong. In conclusion, I don't think there is any point in pursuing further. I'll revise the article at some point to address some of the issues you raised. Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Notability of the 6th exec comm has nothing to do with notability of the 19th politburo of the CPC (see WP:OTHER).
As I said, maybe it's better to let this one go, at least for the time being.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm grateful for your helpful pointers what is missing in the article. Some of them can be addressed from limited reliable sources on the topic, some cannot. However, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with a review pointing out some of the issues should be overlooked because they probably belong to FA (as you also noted above) and not GA because there are always questions where broad scope ends and comprehensive begins. That would be as if the nominator is deflecting and directing the review instead of the reviewer - and that should not happen. Other editors are welcome to offer their opinion, but it ultimately must be up to you as the reviewer: If you feel the scope is too narrow, or that any other criterion is far from met, you are more than justified to fail the nomination.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
To clarify - I'm withdrawing the nomination for the above reasons (per
WP:GAN/I#N3).--
Tomobe03 (
talk) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, as per WT:GAN, I do have some additional thoughts. First, I think whilst the above does show that more could be made, I don't think the article isn't suitably broad. It's worth mentioning that BROAD simply means that it covers all the basics, not that it's a comprehensive study. That said, I do worry that a novice reader (such as myself) would have some issues understanding what is being talked about here. I'd suggest tightening up the lede a bit, and having a better introductory para.
Thanks for the comments. RL stepped in - I hope to be back editing (and responding to your comments) tomorrow-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed a few of the above issues, but I'd need some more info about the building issue (see above). Cheers-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Added info on the building too.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The title is capitalised per MOS:TITLECASE. The ordinal number 6th is spelled out per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:SPELL09. If you think the article should be named differently, there is always the process to propose to move the article to a new name - but that has nothing to to with GA review. Ruling party, do you have any specific MOS issue that could be addressed?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ruling party, I find it problematic that you say things like "I still don't consider this a good article" instead of pointing to a specific actionable mismatch with GA criteria, and ask should a number be spelled or word capitalised instead of pointing to a specific MOS rule the article is not in compliance with. This way it seems you are judging the article on subjective rather than objective criteria. In the above review you have mainly complained about breadth of scope and after disagreeing with me, you went to get a 3rd opinion. It seems to me you got one opinion supporting my view re scope. You have complained about spelling out the number 6 and/or title capitalisation and I have just pointed out relevant MOS rules supporting present solutions. Other than that I'm left with your view that this is not a GA for unspecified reasons. -- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ruling party have you even taken time to review the GA criteria - specifically criteria 3a and 3b (at WP:WIAGA)? Why did you even bother asking for the 3rd opinion if you are perfectly willing to proceed on a personal whim instead? I am aware that this is your first review ever and that everyone has to learn sometime, but I see no point in stubbornly ignoring established review criteria because (as you pointed out above) you think you know better. As stated above, you have not pointed out any GA criteria mismatch except complaining about the scope of the article and then ignored the 3rd opinion you solicited on your own initiative. (Including the GAN talk advice from uninvolved editors to which your reply was "Thanks for good criticism and pointers. I'll approach my next GA review differently".) Since I cannot determine what is your personal preference for the scope except that some of it (as you said above) really belongs to FA, I see no point in dragging out this utterly unhelpful review. Please fail this article already so it could be reviewed later on objective criteria.
Lee Vilenski thank you very much for your remarks. Even though your opinion was rejected by the reviewer, I feel that the article improved as a result of yourpinput. -- Tomobe03 ( talk) 23:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Eight days have gone since the reviewer has posted any actionable comment or indeed failed the review as threatened on multiple occasions. Can I assume the reviewer has abandoned/withdrawn from the review?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ ( talk · contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this GAN. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
put on the shelf- that means "delayed; put on hiatus". I think you mean something like "superseded; replaced" but I want to be sure.
The congress adopted two resolutions – on the role of the SKJ and submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission.- This sentence confuses me. Does it mean that the two resolutions both related to the role of the SKJ? If so, I would get rid of the dash and explain what the two resolutions were. If it means something else, you might want to just reword the sentence.
Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet.- I think a word is missing here.
I'll have more to say later. Until then, thanks for your persistence with this article. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
they instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress...
Tito’s assumption that such course of action would reduce the Soviet threat- the sources (Haig at 139 and Lilly at 213) seem to indicate that it was Stalin's death that reduced the Soviet threat, thereby making further democratization unnecessary. The article seems to suggest that Tito cut back on democratization to reduce the Soviet threat. Am I reading the sources correctly?
The sixth congress also signalled a decline in critical discourse.- you might want to elaborate on that. Why did this decline occur?
Further comments to come. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Territorial basic organisations were set up to replace the Communist Party of the Soviet Union-styled party cells.Was this just a new name or was it a substantive change? If the former, I'd clarify it; if the latter, I'd briefly explain what the difference was.
It re-elected Tito as the General Secretary of the SKJ- The linked article says that the Central Committee appointed him to this position, not the congress. What do your sources say? I can think of a number of possibilities.
The party Articles- are these the same as "the party charter" mentioned in the subsequent paragraph? If so, you might want to use the same term (charter is clearer, in my view) and/or move the sentences together.
Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The party charter specified that basic organisations- This paragraph just seems a bit out of place - it doesn't seem to pertain to any particular decision of the 6th congress - and I'm not sure how much of it is ultimately necessary to understanding the post-6th congress changes. Perhaps it would be better to just eliminate this paragraph (sorry) and change the aftermath section to say something like "Seeking to reduce bureaucracy, lower-level party officials consolidated the functions of smaller organisations (known as party cells) into larger local and municipal districts." You could then provide some of the additional background in an explanatory note, which would then at least be adjacent to the relevant content. This may not be strictly speaking necessary for GA purposes, but I think it would be helpful nonetheless.
There, the central committee instituted new rules virtually reversing many elements of the policy adopted at the sixth congress.- Any specifics? A reader might be interested in the particular policies reversed. (Of course, don't worry if the sources don't say.)
The article is thanks to you making good progress, and we should be able to finish this up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The most significant turnaround was in relation to the proclaimed...- the wording here is a bit confusing: it's not immediately clear what change actually occurred. Might I suggest something along the lines of "Most significantly, the committee began to backtrack on the congress's plans for a reduction in the SKJ's role in government and for a gradual "withering of the state". Furthermore..." (That sentence might be a bit unwieldy, so by all means feel free to adapt it as you like.)
...the role of constituent republics and status of various peoples in Yugoslavia.The page you cite doesn't seem to discuss this: it looks like the section on federalism starts on page 140. While you're at it, you might consider elaborating on the nature of the debate, i.e. trying to reconcile a desire for increased national unity with a need for equality among the republics/ethnic groups.
The congress adopted two resolutions – one on the tasks and the role of the SKJ and another on endorsing all reports submitted by the Central Committee and its Central Auditing Commission.I'm not sure if we really need to know about the second resolution: it doesn't look like it had any lasting significance, being more procedural than anything else. What do your sources say about the first resolution? I presume it endorsed the ideals that you discussed in the first paragraph of the "decisions" section (e.g. director into educator; minimizing bureaucracy), but if the sources don't mention it we of course can't include it. But if the sources permit it, it would be useful to clarify what precisely this resolution involves.
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The congress approved workers' self-management and the change of policy led to a wider discussion about the nature of Yugoslav federalism...- this seems to suggest that workers' self-management specifically led to the discussion on federalism. Is that what you meant? By the way, you might consider adding a bit more to the lead (e.g. on reducing bureaucracy and disapproving of religious activities) in light of the substantial expansions to the body of the article.
By introducing workers' councils in late 1949...- This is a long sentence, and it might be more readable if you split it into two.
...although it was explicitly noted that the autonomy would allow them full independence- do you mean that the autonomy would not allow them full independence? If you do mean "would allow", you might say something like "although it was promised..."
instructed the party members to control the councils...difficult to replace managers.It's not really clear who these councils and managers are. Could you clarify?
The SKJ deemed the national question solved and did not address the inter-republican relations as the national question or a potential point of contention.The wording here is a bit off - I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. I think something just needs to be reworded.
I think we pretty much have all necessary content included now. Once a few issues with the prose are resolved, we'll be good to go. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, the basic party organisations.... In the lead, where technical wording is discouraged, you might just write "local party organisations".
Yes, that's only one comment. I'll run through the references and give the article another thorough read-through, which should enable me to promote the article. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
However, some of the sixth congress's adopted resolutions were reversed when relations with the Soviet Union were normalisedis followed immediately by
The congress approved workers' self-management.... Jumping back and forth between the congress's actions and the aftermath probably could confuse the reader. Perhaps you could just go through and make sure that each sentence in the lead is in the same order as its corresponding section in the body?
The congress approved workers' self-management...- this is a long sentence, and it probably ought to be broken up. You might send the part about workers' self-management up to the previous paragraph (which would help deal with the issue above) while keeping the rest of it where it is.
...by keeping Yugoslavia neutral in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.- the cite should be to page 140, I believe.
While I certainly hope you implement these suggestions, the truth of the matter is that the article meets the GA criteria as-is. I thus am content to pass the article at this time, for the reasons elucidated below. Your impressive work on this article is to be commended, and I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
In my judgment, this article meets the GA criteria.
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)