Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1

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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 20 February 2012 [1]
.

1907 Tiflis bank robbery

1907 Tiflis bank robbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a little known but very interesting incident. The article deals with a stagecoach robbery organized by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin where bombs were thrown at a bank stagecoach in a crowded city square resulting in reportedly at least 250,000 rubles stolen (over $3 Million in current USD), forty people killed, and fifty people injured. The article also discusses how one of the robbers feigned insanity for over three years after being captured and eventually escaped from a mental institution. I think it is a fascinating historical topic that has not received much attention. I have never taken an article through the FA process (so please go easy on me), but Wehwalt and BorisG helped edit this article a lot so I believe it is in pretty good shape (plus it has already been through GA and Peer review). Anyways, it has been a goal of mine to get this up to FA status, and I hope I can eventually accomplish that goal. Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Welcome to FAC! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Leonid Krasin initially quit politics after the split from Lenin in 1909, but rejoined the Bolsheviks after the revolution" - source?
I have added Nicolaevsky as a source for this - and amended the sentence in the process. - BorisG (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin's original Georgian name was "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili", but at the time of the robbery he mostly went by his revolutionary nom de guerre "Koba." Stalin adopted a variety of nicknames and aliases in his life. Sometime after 1912, he began using the name Stalin, which in Russian means "of steel", as his nom de guerre" - source?
Added information and sources. Remember (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check citations to Trotsky and Jones - both are problematic
I am not sure what is problematic about these citations. Could you please let me know more about why these citations are problematic and I will fix them. Remember (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 32: formatting
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Revised. Remember (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent formatting for page ranges - for example, you have "pp. 236–37" but "pp. 246−247"
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers.
I don't think I am missing any book publisher locations that can be found. I checked the citations for the books that do not have a book publisher location and they those locations don't show up in any internet search. If anyone knows where to find this information, let me know and I will add it. Remember (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had a lot to say at the various reviews this article has had, and got my hands dirty by rewriting paragraphs here and there. I've been waiting for Remember to, er, remember that he needed to bring this article to FAC. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding inflation, source quality: I believe I remember having noted something about inflation in the past in relation to this bank robbery? My recollection is that the inflation used in this article is sourced reliably to a secondary source and I'm satisfied with this—and I checked this. Source quality also looks good, see next users comments. I checked the use of PRIMARIES and am not concerned, they're all double cited or quotations in the context set by a secondary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet.
    • A certain lack of context; most summaries of the history of the Social Democrats do not skip merrily from 1903 to 1907 without ever mentioning the
      Revolution of 1905
      .
Agreed. Added. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind more than half-a-dozen words. This was done by a Party which had just been at open war with the Czarist Government, and still viewed it as radically illegitimate. Surely one of the sources describes their internal discussions and even the robbery in such terms? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This requires quite a bit if research. Indeed, this extraordinarily violent robbery was pivotal in creating a rift between those advocating violence and those who rejected such approach, expecially after the defeat of the 1905 revolution. If you have anything specific in mind in terms of context, go for it. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does; it would require reading several standard accounts of the Russian SDs, and understanding them. That is the level of work FAs should have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot in this field over the decades. And I know the context of this and have references. Indeed there was more by way of context in the article than there is now. But during GA review we were asked to shorten it as details may be ineteresting but not for this article. I can try to expand it again... - BorisG (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over-reliance on a single source; Roman Brackman. Who is he? What is Psychology Press? Does it fact-check? Why is it publishing a history? Matters sourced to him vary from the extremely controversial to the well-known; the record of Stalin's ties to the Okhrana has been known at least since 1940, and is widely discussed. Reading reliable sources on Soviet history would have enabled our editors, and so the readers, to tell which is which.
      • Just been reading about Brackman here. Other pages of that website will no doubt give more information. There is also a page here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In short, he's a polemicist. The Soviet Union earned his emnity; and he writes for an American fringe publication to express it. Academic secondary sources would be much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Brackman is borderline. However, I emphatically disagree that the article is mostly based on one source. There are plenty of sources listed. Brackman just gives the most detailed and systematic account in English. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Trotsky is cited twice (speaking of polemics). Did Trotsky say or imply euphemism? Not as far as I can see; and it should be made clear that his objection to Stalin's role is in part that it was inactive and cowardly, unlike Kamo. (I note Trotsky's point that the expropriators were not expelled from the Party; they resigned beforehand, to ensure denialability, and the question was whether to readmit them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would be original research. I do not think we should judge Trotsky's motives. Sorry. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PMAnderson, IMO, these days FAC has kind of a high bar for attributing states of mind, such as motives or emotions, in articles that are basically historical narrative. It's doable ... but the sources have to make it clear that the state of mind was both obvious and important, the sources have to be unusually trustworthy, and even then, we don't do it much. Do you set the bar somewhere else, and do you think these conditions are met in this case? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I had in mind. Indeed, it is the present text which implicitly attributes a state of mind to Trotsky, one that he is most unlikely to have had. We need to be aware of what Trotsky meant, even if we do not say what it was.
I do not understand what you mean. The article contains an exact quote from Trotsky. Please explain. Or even better, edit it yourself. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a point of detail, it would be nice to mention that Djugashvili has had a large variety of spellings in Western languages.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be appropriate for an article on Stalin, not here. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if the article were not using "Djugashvili", which I do not recall having seen elsewhere. Reassuring the reader that his memory is not going is a minor good; but why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reviewed at the peer review stage, but the response there was delayed and I never returned to check what had been done. Will try and find the time over the next few days to do that, and read through the whole article again. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about verifyability, not truth. There is no doubt that Sebag is a relaible source. He is an well known British historian and his Young Stalin is an award winning book. The problematic statement above is properly attributed as claimed by Pavlenko, implying that it is problematic.
WP:V is no excuse for reproducing "verifiable" errors. Certified errors. "Award winning" and "well known" authors, or their copywriters, or their translators turn out sloppy writing all the time. It happens.
NVO (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Straight out errors, no. But we are not talking errors, we are talking claims reproduced in reliable sources. If qualified by the word 'claimed', I think this is fine. It almost admits that this is quite possibly untrue. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after some possible improvements recommended above. When Remember was writing this article, he and Wehwalt suggested I may be interested. I helped Remember with some details and with Russian sources. This is the first time I am commenting on an FA review, so please excuse me if display ignorance about the process. I will provide some replies to comments above, but I have some difficulty with formatting. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone else have thoughts on whether Brackman is overused? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall (admittedly, vaguely) that I myself initially had objections to this source. But then looking at a number of sources, I realised that Brackman did have the most detailed account of all in English, and possibly at all. A lot of details can be found in different sources, but altogether Brackman has the most systematic story. - BorisG (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read the talk page and this is what I said when the article was in the final stages of preparation (December 2010): I think Brackman's book is not a serious source. I think it is ok to use it but we need to mention alternative claims. Brackman presents highly controlversial and disputed claims as facts. He also describes details that cannot possibly be known (like emotions of various people etc). He does not present any critical analysis of sources and evidence. This is more of a fictionalised biography than a serious historial study. Obviously, for WP, it is a reliable source, and thus can be used but need to be used with caution, and alternative views presented. Especially when talking about Stalin's involvement with Okrana (the crux of his book). I would like to present these when I have time. But this can be done in the mainspace. I think my concerns have since been addressed, more or less. - BorisG (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "Once back in Tiflis": but he was in Tiflis in the previous paragraph; did he go elsewhere in the meantime? - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was redundant. I have revised it. Remember (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery#Attack needs to be rewritten; there's so much redundancy that it wouldn't be practical for me to make the changes. You can get rid of almost half of these words with no loss of meaning: "One of the horses harnessed to the bank stagecoach with the money was injured but still alive. The bleeding animal bolted from the scene pulling the stagecoach with it. Three of the robbers, Kupriashvili, Datiko Chibriashvili, and Kamo, chased after the runaway money-laden stagecoach. Kupriashvili threw a grenade at the escaping stagecoach, and the blast from the bomb blew off the horse's legs, killing the horse and stopping the stagecoach. The blast also threw Kupriashvili into the air, and he fell to the ground stunned. Kupriashvili later regained consciousness and managed to sneak out of the square before security forces arrived. After the stagecoach stopped, Datiko Chibriashvili went into the stagecoach to snatch the sacks of money while Kamo, firing his pistol as he rode his phaeton, raced to the stopped stagecoach. Once Kamo reached the stagecoach, Chibriashvili and another robber that arrived at the stagecoach helped throw the stolen money into Kamo's phaeton." - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the robbery, there were rumors that Stalin threw the first grenade": Not sure what this means. Were people saying right after the robbery that they saw him throw the grenade? Who said that? - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source just says that "it was said that Stalin had thrown the first bomb from the roof of Prince Sumbatov's mansion". So I can't answer when the rumors stared. Not sure how this can be improved given the ambiguity of the source material. Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please see User:Dank/Copy2, "hinting". I removed that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin left Baku along with 20,000 rubles in stolen money in July 1907." Stalin had the money, right? I changed "along with" to "with".
Correct.Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin had been hoping to help the man who had successfully executed the robbery": By paying for surgery, or some other way?
By just setting him up with a doctor, but I think this has already been resolved so it's a moot point now. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed a lot of text so far, but no references, so some of the references will be redundant. (I don't generally make calls on references.) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That autumn, Kamo traveled to Paris, to Belgium to buy arms and ammunition, and to Bulgaria to buy 200 detonators.": I'm checking to see if my wording is right; were all those trips in autumn?
Yes. That is correct. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muktarov was suspended from Okhrana,": Usually you say "the Okhrana"; be consistent throughout.
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krasin succeeded in changing serial numbers": He forged them, right? - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none of the major organizers of the robbery": "none of the organizers of the robbery", right?
Correct. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, the notoriety of the robbery had a significant impact on internal politics within both the RSDLP and the Bolshevik faction.": This is a judgment call; I removed it because IMO this section doesn't need a topic sentence, that is, it's easy enough to understand one sentence at a time, and the other sentences state the same thing in a more precise and accurate way. A shorter topic sentence might be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "party members investigated Lenin and others concerning the incident. However these internal investigations were stalled by the Bolsheviks, which impaired the ability of the investigators to get anything accomplished": I don't follow; was Lenin investigated or not? Striking, I got this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This left their social-democratic rivals,
    Georgian Mensheviks, without any significant opposition.": What is "this", the whole paragraph, or the previous sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It has been revised so the point is now moot. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "This left" to "leaving"; is that right? - Dank (push to talk)
Yes. Remember (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a variety of small changes to improve the clarity and readbility of the article. It looks like all of the other issues discussed above are either resolved or still being discussed. If there are any other suggestions or comments regarding the article, please let me know. Remember (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this can be considered reliable enough-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the use of Trotsky for a minor point should invalidate this article as a FA candidate. We simply cite that Trosky, who was a strong political opponent of Stalin, researched this issue and concluded that he did not take part in the actual robbery. But just to clarify for the reader the nature of Trosky and Stalin's relationship, I have revised the passage to make clear that Trosky was a political opponent of Stalin. Any other thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Trotsky doesn't seem to be a problem here. But one little note: at present when you click the link in the references, it doesn't jump to his entry in the bibliography like it should. Leonxlin (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script (which I strongly recommend anyone using Sfn/Harvnb references to install) shows that ref. 64 (Jones 2005) has the same problem. Ucucha (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Remember (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not with Trotsky. My problem is with the site. The introduction to the site states that "... Are you looking to join a union or a political party? While our work is about education, not party or union building, we are happy to give you information about these things through our sister site: Leftist Parties of the World. This site contains a very robust and thorough listing of unions and political parties near you. " Can the site be considered neutral enough? Are you sure that Trotsky has not been misrepresented or his writings not been tampered with?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Boris added this link and the Trotsky reference, and I think he did so just so that people could have an online reference to the materials cited. But I will ask him to chime in. Remember (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. To be sure, this Trotsky's book was published widely by mainstream publishers. The site just made the text available online. I will check at other sites. - BorisG (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked Russian edition here http://magister.msk.ru/library/trotsky/trotl030.htm http://magister.msk.ru is a general purpose internet library. I can confirm that the translation is very precise. Is this enough or we need to check with a published copy. I don't have one, and I think it would be an overkill. Marxists.org is a reputable online publisher of Marxist literature. It is not reliable as to opinions, but it is the main publisher of histortical Marxists. What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can also see a quote from the book from here from google books [2]. So the quote is accurate, but I don't know if you want to change the publisher to the google book link. Let me know what you want to do. Remember (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we should change the publisher to the one used by Google books but retain the internet link to the online edition as well. - BorisG (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I changed the citation to the Library of Congress citation number (instead of an ISBN) and used the google book links instead of the website. Let me know if this works for everyone or if we need to do further work on this. Remember (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)

  • Overall, I find the prose quality very good. The narrative is engaging, yet professional. Good job.
Thanks. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And/or: "The robbery was planned and/or executed ..." - That should be plain "and". Unless I'm misreading the article: isnt it certain that the Bolsheviks both planned and executed it? Even if there is uncertainty (thus "and/or" is legitimate) it is too informal for an encyclopedia, IMO, and should be re-worded.
Revised. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use "reportedly"? All detail about the attack originates, directly or indirectly, from eyewitnesses over 100 year ago - so all the facts should be equally reliable (or suspect). For instance: "Witnesses reported that bombs were thrown .... The blasts from the bombs were so strong that they reportedly knocked ..." I would eliminate both "reportedly"s.
I was hedging because I cannot be sure what happened, but I have revised all the use of reportedly based on your suggestion. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verb: "Kamo's monument—authored by the sculptor Iakob Nikoladze—was later removed during Stalin's rule ...". The word "authored" doesn't seem right for a sculpture. Perhaps "crafted" or "designed" or "created".
revised. Remember (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: The final two sentences of the lead seem rather unimportant: "Kamo, the leader of the group that executed the robbery, was originally buried in Pushkin Gardens, which is located near Yerevan, and a monument was erected in his honor next to his grave. The monument was later removed and his remains moved to another location." Perhaps they could be removed from the lead, and some other, more critical material be inserted?
I actually like this sentence here, but if others want me to remove it and add other information, I will do so. Remember (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander that the entire last paragraph is not important enough to be included in the lead. I would prefer to expand slightly on the previous paragraph re immediate aftermath of the robbery. I will try to formulate it shortly. - BorisG (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for BorisG's revisions. Again, I like this paragraph because it is very ironic that the bank robbers have the square named after them, but I seem to be in the minority. Remember (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Support. I have not checked images or sources, but it looks like others have below. --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images

I don't believe NVO's comment re: this article's images was addressed. Although all are present on Commons, I see two issues dealing with proof of license:

Everything else image-wise seems okay. María (yllosubmarine) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to deal with this issue. I found these images on Commons but I did not upload them so I don't know who the authors are and I don't know how to obtain this information. Any suggestions? Remember (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not an expert on images, so I've asked for some guidance at WT:FAC. Are there suitable substitute images available, just in case? Are these two images integral to the article itself? María (yllosubmarine) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep them if possible, but if we have to ditch them, so be it. Remember (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second one looks like a newspaper, do you know where it came from?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unfortunately, I don't know where either picture actually came from. I just grabbed them from commons so I don't know more than any of you all about the images. I think I am just going to cut the bombs picture because I am not even sure that these bombs are the same type that were used in the robbery so it may be misleading to have them in the article. As for the Kamo picture, I would like to keep it since Kamo is such a major figure in the robbery, but I would be happy to replace it if anyone can find another picture of Kamo to put in its place. Remember (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will do some research while we are locked out by the management.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have heard nothing on this and can't find the justification myself, I have removed the image from the article.

Comments some technical issues on a real quick drive by (apologies, time is short right now...):

  • Don't think "Post Office" is a proper noun.
  • Infobox - deaths were (according to archives) but injuries weren't?
  • "The bad press from..." not sure but I think this is a little colloquial for an encyclopaedic article.
  • Images could use alt text.
  • One dab link, "Caucasians".
  • Perhaps a style issue but lots of very small paragraphs in the Preparation section, at least one with just a single sentence.
    • I'll take this one: I've merged the one-sentence paragraph into the next section. I can't see how to break the other paragraphs any differently than they are now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption has Phaeton capitalised but prose doesn't.
  • "Georgy Plekhanov" our article calls him Georgi.
  • Ref 6, a single page so not pp.
  • I think the publisher of The New York Times is actually The New York Times Company.
  • Should think about adding "subscription needed" for refs behind a paywall.
  • SMH is published by Fairfax Media.
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to here so I don't know how to fix it. Could you please let me know what source you are referring to? Remember (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about the Sydney Morning Herald; he may be proposing you add the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised.Remember (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs - some have a full stop, others don't, rationale?
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to here so I don't know how to fix it. Could you please describe the problem some more and I will try to fix it. Remember (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIVED IN LATIN QUARTER, per MOS I think we normally apply our own standards to these titles etc, so reduce the shoutiness!
  • I think Russian Review is actually The Russian Review.
  • Sebag Montifiore doesn't appear to need a hyphen.

Sorry I can't do more detail at the moment, perhaps if I'm lucky, I'll get a chance to re-visit the prose in more detail. Very interesting read though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subscription needed, the usual is to add (subscription needed) at the end of the cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how do you fit it into the citation template? I tried putting it under the title, but it won't come out right. Is there a specific field where I should put this information? Remember (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add it after the end of the template and before the </ref>--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Remember (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think I have addressed all remaining issues with article. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be dealt with. Remember (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources- I'm not seeing it, did I miss it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is something that I cannot do and that others will have to check out? If not, let me know what needs to be done. Remember (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (it's listed at
WT:FAC). We try to get at least one spotcheck for every nominator-- that sources are accurately represented and avoid too close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments from Spinningspark
  • The infobox should not have Kamo as both a participant and a suspect. Either he definitely participated or it was only suspected that he did. The need to make these kinds of judgements calls in filling them out is what makes infoboxes such a bad idea imo.
  • "RSDLP" or "the RSDLP". It should consistently be one or the other throughout, and inmo should be "the RSDLP".
  • "...caused a split within the Bolshevik leadership between Lenin, Bogdanov, and Krasin." Who split from who? It is not clear. Same commnent in the "Trials of Kemo" section.
    • Lenin split from Bogdanov and Krasin. I am not sure how to express this. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section should give background information on the nature of the state (imperial government) the RSDLP was trying to overthrow as well as the RSDLP themselves. At the moment a very lopsided picture is painted of them.
    • Good point. May do this if some concise description comes to mind. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will wait to see what BorisG adds since he is more knowledgable in this area. Remember (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...had already planned a number of "expropriations" in different parts of Russia by the time of the 5th Congress" Previously it is stated that the Bolshevik Centre was formed during the 5th Congress. If so, it could not have planned anything in advance of the conference.
    • Nicolaevsky suggests that Bolshevik Centre had existed in some form prior to the Congress, but he has trouble finding any useful information about it. Thus it is better to speak of Bolshevik leadership rather than a specific body. Revised. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...known by his earlier nickname Koba" Nickname is a poor description. This is more of a
    nom de guerre
    .
  • The allegation that Stalin was an Okhrana agent, at least at the time of the robbery, is debunked by multiple authors. Even with the modifier "allegation" this is still too unbalanced.
    • Not sure. Debunked is POV. This is a serious compilation of various sources on this issue [3]. I don't think there is anything conclusive about this. Wikipedia should not take sides in this controversy. 'Allegations' is fine, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is the same as BorisG's. If anyone else knows that this has been completely debunked and should not be mentioned, I can incorprate this information into the article. Until then, I think mentioning the allegations is fine. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with previous reviewers comments about "stagecoach". This probably stems from a poor translation. It should be changed unless it can be established that stagecoach with the usual English meaning was really meant.
    • The source itself uses the term stagecoach and our article on stage coaches say that they "could be any four wheeled vehicle pulled by horses or mules, the primary requirement being that it was used as a public conveyance, running on an established route and schedule." Not sure why this doesn't meet the requirements. I am happy to discuss further though along with discussing alternative terminology. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some copyediting is required before this can be promoted. There are multiple sentences spliced with "and" which are not really connected or that do not flow very well.
    • You are going to have to be more specific because I don't know what sentences you would like revised. I am happy to review the text to try to make it better, but I don't know what you want revised. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any other source besides Montefiore for the 40 dead? All the other sources give the dead as three Cossacks and/or two bank workers. My suspicion is that the dead are being conflated with the figures for the wounded who may have later died.
    • The Russian archives evidently show that it was 40 dead and Montefiore is the only one that went that far (as far as I know) to verify this information. Not sure how you want to deal with this issue. Happy to hear any suggestions. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin walked 3 miles (4.8 km)" Small cardinals should be spelled out, as "three miles"
  • Centre/Center. Either American or British spelling should be used consistently throughout.
  • "Soviet Customs office" half-capitalised. Probably should be "Soviet customs office".
  • SpinningSpark 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of the above replies I am going to oppose, at least for now. I think it is essential for balance of the article that the background section discusses the Czarist state and the Bolsheviks relationship to it. This needs to be done before FA promotion, not simply marked down as a task for some future date. In my view this is rather more relevant than the relationship to the Mensheviks which is discussed at some length. On the question of Stalin working for the secret police, "alleged" simply will not do given the strength of opposition to this idea in some sources [4][5]. I am not in the least suggesting taking sides, but I am suggesting that leaving it as a weak "alleged" is POV in favour of the allegers if the strength of the opposers is not made clear. At the very least a case needs to be made for why the sources cited are to be considered more reliable than those that contradict and have been left out. SpinningSpark 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the source I provided (Felshtinsky) is a compilation of publications both for and against the allegations. The editor does not take sides. - BorisG (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Spinningspark, let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, I skimmed the lead and first two sections in response to your comment about inappropriate ands; there were none in the lead or first two sections. Could you point some out, please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial spotcheck:

  • Checked #9, five uses: fine.
  • Google books references include a lot of highlighting/tracking bumpf, which should be removed;
    • I don't know what you mean by this. Could you please explain further and I will try to fix. Remember (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you see http://books.google.com/?id=zQL8POkFGIQC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=russia+tiflis+%22bank+robbery%22#v=onepage&q=russia%20tiflis%20%22bank%20robbery%22&f=false, well "http://books.google.com/?id=zQL8POkFGIQC" would suffice for the book, "&pg=PA58" is to the page (optional), "&dq=russia+tiflis+%22bank+robbery%22#v=onepage&q=russia%20tiflis%20%22bank%20robbery%22&f=false" does the higlighting of the search terms you were using at the time (and some other small breadcrumb things, I think) and can be removed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burford is a bit weak in so far as it doesn't cover all of the elements of each sentence, but another source, which I haven't checked is provided. (Further check warranted.)
    • Yeah, Burford was only used to try to get some general information about the square and so the other source should support the sentence. Unfortunately, it was hard to find sources on this topic so I had to use the scant resources I could find. Remember (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mensheviks would lead Georgia during its short-lived independence from 1918 to 1921" is not supported by #64;
    • Revised. I didn't originally add this language so I changed it to something that I could find support for. Remember (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #3 has no page number, or even a range of pages. This would be helpful. It doesn't seem to touch on the "expropriation-as-a-euphemism" thing mentioned.
  • No concerns with Christian's one use.
  • Ref #40: first use is fine. Second is a bit iffy. The article says "swallow the evidence after the cashier called the police, but the police stopped her by grabbing her throat", but the NYT suggests it actually had details of her accomplices. Not quite the same thing. Also it's fairly closely worded, see if you can kill two birds with one stone. I wouldn't say close paraphrasing, and the article is phrase "The New York Times reported" which makes that more acceptable. Even so, worth another look at.
    • You are right. I read this wrong. It has been revised. Remember (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a start, if the rest of the issues are resolved (I haven't been following the FAC). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - any other suggested revisions? Remember (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So is there anything else that needs to be done or are we just waiting for more reviewers? Remember (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can we simplify "To deal with the increased security, there was a gang member spotting each security officer prior to the robbery and gang members were looking down on the square from above the main street."?: "To deal with the increased security, gang members spotted each security officer prior to the robbery and lookouts were posted looking down on the square from above."
    • This has been revised by the commenter.Remember (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dead humans and horses": it strikes me as unidiomatic to talk of people as humans. I think this may have been done to avoid repetition of "people" in the same sentence, or to go for the h- and h- alliteration?
    • This has been revised by the commenter.Remember (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we expand "the death of his wife Ekaterina Svanidze" to "the death by natural causes of his wife Ekaterina Svanidze". Just to highlight that her death was not related to the raid or the revolution.
    • This has been revised by the commenter.Remember (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems with sources or media. There was a problem with the media file in the template (because if
    talk) 16:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support I don't wish to hold this up, so I've made three changes on the above.
    talk) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note - Could the nominator please provide a short summary of the actions taken to resolve the two remaining opposes and respond to DrKiernan's review?

talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

    • Unfortunately, I am extremely busy in real life right now, but I should be able to address all concerns sometime this week. Remember (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • DrKiernan has made his own revisions. As for the two opposes, I will discuss them each below.Remember (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first oppose was from RaviMy Tea Kadai who opposed using Trotsky as a source, but we only use Trotsky as a source for a small point and we point out his conflict of interest in the article. Given that there are a lack of good sources on this issue, I think it is useful to have and I disagree that the use of this source should disqualify the article. Remember (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second oppose is from SpinningSpark who said that he opposed because: (1) the background section needed to "discuss[] the Czarist state and the Bolsheviks relationship to it; and (2) use of the word "alleged" was inappropriate in his view to characterize Stalin's working for the secrete police. I do not think that further background is needed regarding the status of the Czarist state at this point, and I think the use of the word alleged is fine given the sources we cited. If other editors feel differently, let me know and I will try to address these concerns. Remember (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know if you need any further information. Remember (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Eisfbnore
  • "Lenin conceived of a plan to have various individuals cash the large bank notes at once at various locations thoroughout Europe in January 1908, but this strategy failed resulting in a number of arrests, worldwide publicity, and negative reaction from European social democrats." — I would prefer a comma after "failed".
  • "The goal of the RSDLP was to change the economic and political system in the Russian Empire through a proletarian revolution according to Marxist doctrine." — Perhaps swap "according to" for "in accordance with"?
  • "From 1903 onwards, the RSDLP was divided between two major groups, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks." — The comma after "groups" ought, methinks, to be replaced with a semicolon or a dash.
  • Is Brit. or Am. Eng. used in the article? I'm seeing both "per cent" and "traveled".
    • Not sure there is a definite decision. I am happy either way. Let me know what needs to be revised to make it consistent. Remember (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Per cent" is Br. Eng. whilst "traveled" is Am. Eng. It's your take, but since this article deals with a European topic, I would have chosen British English.
  • "Because Voznesensky worked in the Tiflis banking mail office, he had access to a secret schedule that showed the times that cash would be transferred by stagecoach to the Tiflis branch of the State Bank" — I would ditch the "Because" in favour of "Since". There are a few too many because's in this article.
  • "Kamo was confined to his bed for a month due to intense pain" — Shouldn't the "due to" be "owing to"?
  • "On the day of the robbery, 26 June 1907, the 20 organizers, including Stalin, met near Yerevan Square (just 2 minutes from the seminary, bank and viceroy's palace) to finalize their plans, and after the meeting, they went to their designated places in preparation for the attack." — My own (non-native) comprehension of English would dictate that the comma be placed after "and".
    • Based on my research, a comma is not needed here. Remember (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apart from Kamo, none of the organizers of the robbery was ever brought to trial" — subject-predicate agreement.
  • "The Bolsheviks popularity in Tiflis continued to fall and by 1911, there were only about 100 Bolsheviks left in the city" — 1) missing possessive apostrophe in "Bolsheviks" 2) comma after "and"?
    • Revised, but no comma needed after "and" but one was needed before. Remember (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statue of Lenin was torn down in August 1991 in the final months of the Soviet Union to be replaced by the Liberty Monument in 2006." This sentence would exploit its grammatical parallelisms better if it read thus: "The statue of Lenin was torn down in August 1991—one of the final months of the Soviet Union—and replaced by the Liberty Monument in 2006".
  • "Stalin's role was later questioned by fellow revolutionaries Boris Nicolaevsky and Leon Trotsky, Stalin's rival, who was later assassinated on orders from Stalin." — This is a bit unclear. Most people will of course understand that it was Trotsky who was assassinated, but the sentence should be more clear in explaining it thus. How about: "Stalin's role was later questioned by fellow revolutionaries Boris Nicolaevsky and Leon Trotsky. The latter, Stalin's rival, was later assassinated on orders from Stalin." --Eisfbnore talk 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- all comments have been addressed. Please let me know if there are any other comments. Remember (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the changes look great. You'll have my support. Eisfbnore talk 21:10, 20 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_article_candidates/1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery/archive1&oldid=1141924096"