Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [1].

List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s[edit]

List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first nom in a while. --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Sorry to respond so negatively so abruptly, Trust, but I have to oppose this just based on the table alone. It has numerous problems in terms of accessibility (and usability). I would suggest you take a lingering read through WP:ACCESS and especially MOS:DTT. I'll be glad to elaborate more on what I see wrong with the table, if you ask me to, but I assume the pages I pointed to will explain things more clearly and completely. It seems like sortable columns would be pretty useful here, though (not an accessibility issue, more like usability). And the use of bold and caps seems inconsistent with the MoS.
I also notice that the title of your main ref varies from the bottom of the table to the refs list. It also looks like short citations would be useful for this page. Again, sorry to be so negative when I know you've worked hard on the page. I look forward to supporting its promotion after it's been worked over some more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see a problem with the tables (I fixed the many errors I failed to see....). Even so, talk - just tell me, the list probably has a lot of problems. The only way to fix them is by telling me (or another user, but is not happening under my watch :). --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for asking for more details. I hope this list helps you understand what I was talking about. I've also noticed a few other things (like in the intro) and thrown them on the heap as well.
  • Done First, there's the mark-up for column headings with scope="col", as explained a bit at DTT, basics section. This can help screen readers used by people who can't view the table graphically.
  • Done Then, there's the mark-up to make row headings into row headings ("!" rather than "|"), with the scope="row" code (also at the same MOS:DTT section). This also helps make the table a table for those who can't see the lines.
  • Done While you're under the hood getting greasy, might as well rip out all that unnecessary rowspan="1" stuff.
  • Done By default, table row headings are probably rendered by your browser as bold and centered (just like column headings). If you add plainrowheaders to the class list in class="wikitable sortable", the row headings will remain non-bold and left-aligned. In that case, you can get rid of the align="left" code before each guy's name at the start of each line. (In fact, you don't need that already, since the default for the table is left-alignment; viz. all the other cells. Although speaking of that, centering might not look bad on this table. You could make that the default by adding style="text-align:center;" to the end of the top line of the table, instead of width=100%.)
  • Done It doesn't seem logical to have two columns labelled "Tenure". I suppose what you really mean is "Candidate tenure (non-voting)" and "Full tenure (voting)". Yes? And judging from the examples of Mazurov and Podgorny, maybe the table would be clearer if the Candidate tenure columns were on the left of the Full tenure columns; the person goeas forward in time, from left to right, from candidate to full member.
  • Done Nail down that footer row by using |-class="sortbottom" to keep it from being included in the sort. An alternative is to take those notes right out of the table, and place them below it.
  • Done The sorting itself is a little dysfunctional:
    • Done The Name column doesn't sort at all for me. I don't get to see the arrows to initiate a sort for that column (although I do for all the other columns). I don't know what's causing this.
    • Done The sorting of the dates needs work, as they come end up in what looks like random order (8 April 1966, 16 July 1960, 4 May 1960, 25 January 1982, etc.)
    • Done Same problem with the Durations.
Done Maybe look at Help:Sorting for more ideas?
  • Done The name of your main source is still unclear; is it "...is Governed" or ...was Governed"?
  • Done Since the captions of both images are sentences, they each require one period. (And maybe a bit of variation in wording between the two?)
  • Done In the lede itself (and possibly in the captions, although it doesn't bother me as much there), change the phrasing like "from 1964–1982" to "from 1964 to 1982" per MOS:ENDASH and WP:YEAR.
  • Done I agree with TMR that "was no other than Frol Kozlov" is a bit sensationalist. Grammatically it should be "was none other than Frol Kozlov", encyclopedically I'd suggest you make it simply "was Frol Kozlov," followed by his significance as you already have it.
  • Done When you start a list, as after "three members were elected to the Politburo", use a colon, not a semicolon.
  • Done The semicolon originally in "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy: Brezhnev was a conservative while Kosygin was a modest reformer" was correct; you should change it back. In this sentence, you aren't introducing a list, so the colon is the wrong punctuation. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Also, in "Third Secretary: the secretary responsible for industry", think the colon here should be a comma, since we're merely saying what the Third Secretary is. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Change "count on 3 to 4 votes" -> "count on three to four votes" per WP:ORDINAL.
  • Done Misspelled month in "31 Octobe 1961".
  • Done I do still recommend short citations for this page.
Now, aren't you sorry you asked? Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at the reworked page and see that you have made many changes, including splitting the candidate member and full member portion into separate tables. I'm a bit sorry to see that, because we lose the easy visibilty of seeing who began their full membership when, following their candidate membership. I guess the two-row heading on the old table was what was keeping the names from sorting? Pity. But ah, well, let's take another look:
  • Sorting looks fully functional to me now. Yay.
  • I really like the short citation for the Fainsod book. Don't you?
  • Done The more I look at the page, the more uncomfortable I grow with the footers. The sourcing notes are identical in both and could just as well (IMHO) come in ordinary text right after the List of members heading. The separate notes about voting could also be outside the tables, coming right after the respective Full members/Candidate members headings (or after the respective tables, or just right after the List of members heading, combined into one note after the sourcing note). But instead of external links to pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240, why not a reflink down to (say) Ref 14, where Ref 14 is "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240" down in the Notes section?
  • Done In any case, the bold style in the footer looks odd, especially with the external link to the source pages. We generally try to avoid bold links. This problem goes away if you move the notes out of the table footers.
  • Done The mark-up for the footers is a bit overdone. All you'd really need is !class="unsortable" colspan ="7". (I'm sorry if I misled you with class="sortbottom"; I'm sure I've used that before and it's still in one of the sorting help pages.) This point about the mark-up goes away completely (except my apology) if you move the notes out of the footers.
  • Done I see the alt text for Khrushchev claims he's wearing a dress. I am disappointed to see that he appears to be wearing merely a suit; many folks would have paid good money to see him in a dress. I'm also not convinced Brezhnev is wearing a military uniform. It, too, looks like a regular suit with some medals pinned on.
  • Done I was thinking earlier (before you split the tables) about how nifty it would be to be able to quickly determine who was in the Politburo on any given date. I don't know how to achieve this, however, either with the old combined table or split, as now. There seem to be too many columns to sort simultaneously. Obviously, I can't fairly oppose if we can't incorporate such a display, but if you (or anybody else) can think of a way to do it neatly, I'd sit right up and applaud heartily.
  • I'll be working on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present changes is the best that I can do (of course, I may be wrong). --TIAYN (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can come up with. Thanks for the hard work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all the remodeling that has occurred in the past weeks, I'm not sure how or why some of the changes ended up as they did, so I'll ask again here:

  • Done I'm still uncomfortable with the repeated citations for How the Soviet Union is Governed in the General references section. Why not just "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231" as I suggested above?
  • Done (added them to the lead) What happened to the notes about who can vote? Did you decide those are no longer important? It seems that you could add some explanatory text right after the List of members heading, so the reader has an idea of the significance of the two tables.
  • Done (I really cant solve the table issue; Its stil a puzzle for me why it didn't work in the first place) Im also still a bit unsure about the separation of tables. I know it's more accessible, and it's technically cleaner in terms of semantic mark-up, but now we have doubled-up entries. Perhaps a mention of this right before the tables (like after the voting rights explanation above), explaining that X candidate members later became full members, and therefore appear in both tables, while the rest didn't (Y of them were shot, maybe, and Z of them just died in office; poor Demichev was in there for 24 years as a candidate and never made full member (do we know why?), although he was there the latest of any of these guys).
  • Done Speaking of Demichev, this page calls him Peotr, but the WP article is titled Pyotr Demichev. There's a redirect, but does this need correcting?
  • Done (added two templates; one which has existed for a while, and another long-needed template for the CPSU)Would some See also links be appropriate, say to List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s or # List of members of the Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1950s? Or is there a nav template? (If there isn't one, please don't make a template just to pass FLC; I'm just mentioning the idea as an alternative or supplement to See also links).

Sorry for throwing in the new items about See also links and Demichev's first name. As you can perhaps tell, I'm having trouble supporting the nom without reservation, although I do see it as much improved. TIAYN, I appreciate your patience and continued efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some weird reason this guy is not responding, what should I do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Done WP:DASH says to use spaced en-dashes for things like those date ranges.
  • Done Took off. -> Took office etc.
  • Done Why are "Voting" and "Death" capitalised?
  • Done Not sure we absolutely have to use that small text.
  • Done Don't understand the relevance of the thin empty rows here.
  • Done Sortability would be handy.
  • Done It would be better if you used First name, last name here and if you made the table sortable, you could use the {{sortname}} template.
  • Done "was no other then" I guess you mean "than", but this reads a bit sensational...
  • Done "Khrushchev's ouster," what does this mean? Do you mean ousting?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All those references to the same "How the Soviet Union is Governed.", you can make a general reference and then just refer in the references to "Book, author, page (range)" rather than repeat the publisher, the isbn etc every single time.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Done "During the 1960s 32 people held seats in the Politboro: 23 full-members and 14 candidate members." Were there some people who were in both at some point? Seems like it judging by the numbers. Also, the hyphen in "full-members" doesn't seem correct.
    • Politboro should be capitalized in the new text for consistency. And is this cited anywhere? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done "In 1963, for unknown reason, possibly health reasons". Feels like the first "reason" should be plural too.
  • Done "the Presidium reverted to it's previous name". Apostrophe should be removed from "it's".
  • Done The comma after "he did not have a majority in the Politboro" would work better as a semi-colon for the sentence as a whole.
  • Done In the same area, "in fact" is quite redundant on the face on it; if it wasn't a fact, it probably wouldn't have been included to start with.
  • Done Small prose point in "Brezhnev and Kosygin would often disagree on policy": it would be stronger in the active form of "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy".
  • Done Photos in the lead could use alt text.
    • First photo has alt text, but the second doesn't. I know there's a way to get alt text in both images in a multi-photo situation like this, but I'm not an expert in the formatting since I haven't done it myself. Maybe someone passing by will know what to do? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done This is a new one for me: in both tables, the source row is sorting like any other row in the table, which I imagine it shouldn't be.
  • Done Another hyphen in "Full-members" needs to be removed in a table note. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Done One very picky comment; you have a bibliography section, yet only book is listed in it, while other books are in the specific section e.g. (huskey book). What I would like to see done, is move the full referencing for the books into the bibliography section, and then reference the sources, as you have done for the book that is currently used there NapHit (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Fails criterion 3b. Considering how the main article stuffs essentially the same data into a single graphic, I'd expect much more detail here. Either expand, or merge. Goodraise 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list... I'll expand the Politburo article just as I will expand the Central Committee article (which I am doing).. A user is for some weird reason bent on adding the old table. + Is this a good enough reason for opposing a list? It seems a bit random! --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+ that graf (which you saw) is factually inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the nominator. We have 9 lists, and merging them all into one article is absurd.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with Pumpkin, I see no issue with 3b for this one. Everything seems in order to me. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Done From 1955 to 1964 and from 1964 to 1982 the Politburo was chaired by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev respectively is oddly worded. As I read it the first time I wondered what had happened in 1964 for there to be a stop and a start, and I think it's because it's in the passive voice. "Nikita Khrushchev chaired the Politburo from 1955 to 1964; Leonid Brezhnev succeeded him that year and chaired until 1982." is active but there are more deft ways of saying it.
  • Done What's with the past-future tense in the caption? Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and would chair the Politburo until 1982. What's wrong with "Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and chaired the Politburo until 1982."?
  • Done 17 October–31 October 1961 is made up of two elements, "17 October" and "31 October". Because they're spaced, you need spaces between the dash. If you did "17–31 October 1961" though (because the span is within the same month and you don't have to repeat it) you wouldn't space the dash
  • Done Alexander Shelepin, the Chairman of the State Control Commission, Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers. should have semi colons after each position, rather than commas. So "....Chairman of the State Control Commission; Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine; and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman...."

Doesn't seem too bad otherwise. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_members_of_the_Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union_in_the_1960s/archive1&oldid=1089913379"