Template:Did you know nominations/1965 Soviet economic reform
- The following 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 Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1965 Soviet economic reform
[edit]- ALT0 ... that orthodox Marxist-Leninists criticized the Soviet Union's 1965 economic reform because of its focus on enterprise profitability?
- ALT1:... that the 1965 economic reform flummoxed Soviet enterprise managers who chronically underestimated future output?
- ALT2:... that the 1965 Soviet economic reform counteracted wage reforms which had just been introduced?
- Reviewed: Ontario Provincial Budget, 2013
5x expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
confirmed 5x expansion, prose size (14k characters) & article seems within policy. Hook is fine, albeit with a slightly different wording and offline source, so assuming good faith. The following might have been possible as well—
- ALT3: ... that the 1965 Soviet economic reform was not politically correct?
- —which is more concise but if no one else has an opinion the primary hook is good to go. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be some copying from an online, uncited source (Glenn E. Curtis, ed. Russia: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996.), from this page. The bulk of the first paragraph under "The Economy under Brezhnev" has been split up and reused in three places in this article, one of which comprises the entire "Political reorganization" section. There's no way the nomination can be allowed on the main page in its current shape. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello comrades, thanks for the comments. BlueMoonset, that's a good catch. In the spirit of collaboration I usually like to leave some of the original text of an article, even when I do a big expansion, but in this case the results were not best. (Technically it is cited and comes from a public domain source—but still it's not ideal.) Also, in this case, it would be desirable to have more information on the political reorganization which took place, a concept which I admit was murky in the available English sources. I will happily rectify this issue if you'll permit me a few days. (Would you be so kind as to highlight other problematic parts of the text beyond this sentence?)
- AdamBMorgan, I am charmed by your alternative hook and think it would be fine to use. do svidaniya, groupuscule (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Groupuscule, here's a Duplication detector report that highlights all the problematic material from that source; the first four phrases are the ones that need to be dealt with, sometimes including prior or subsequent words that are not exact matches but still close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Most recent changes should do the trick. groupuscule (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Groupuscule, here's a Duplication detector report that highlights all the problematic material from that source; the first four phrases are the ones that need to be dealt with, sometimes including prior or subsequent words that are not exact matches but still close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Those footnotes needs to be fixed. Long quotations for so many sources is just excessive, I would suggest that many of those footnotes should be removed. If you are confident about the source and its existence, then you don't need anything else. Footnotes are for emergency, I think it would be fair to keep footnote for the only the main hook. I find ALT2 to be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Although I would tend to agree about the clutter (shortened footnotes are useful here), footnote quotes are permitted in articles and is not a disqualifying criterion for DYK. New review request, preferably addressing whether the copyvio issue has been resolved. Fuebaey (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copyvio has been suitably dealt with. Most of the sources are offline, but due to the quotes given in the references, I can confirm that there is no apparent copyvio or close para-phrasing from them either. The article went through a suitable expansion in the time-frame required, and is more than long enough. Good to go, though I'm not actually that keen on ALT3. Harrias talk 07:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)