Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review. It's a big article and it may take me a couple of days to review it all; I shall attempt to leave comments below in a big list without timestamps. If you could tick them off rather than remove them entirely that would also be useful. As with many of my review, most of these are just suggestions rather than official criteria, so you can object to them as you wish. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done UK/US spelling seems to be inconsistent. Most seems to be UK/ROW spelling, though, so I've converted the remaining instances of "ize", and if you spot any more US spellings, I suggest you switch them accordingly.
Done I've added a couple of clarify tags it would be good for you to address (UPDATE: and some more).
Done Sino–Soviet relations and Soviet-Eastern Bloc relations could do with a sentence at the end of each concluding about what the state of play was at Brezhnev's death.
Done "The Soviet leadership's policy towards the Eastern Bloc did not change much with Khrushchev's replacement. Reform programmes were met with scepticism, however, ..." I thought I understood that sentence until the word "however". Remind me / the reader, what was Khrushchev's stance to which you refer? Reformist or hardline?
I get the vague sense that relations with other communists third-world states are absent from that section. If this is the case, a sentence roundup would suffice, I think.
- What section, the Third World section or the Eastern Bloc one? --TIAYN (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Third World :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done --TIAYN (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine "Many dissidents, and a number of radical reformers," I have changed to simply "Many dissidents", since they are then characterised in the next sentence as gradualists, which would be contradictory.

I think that's every. As I say, a few clarifys to look at as well, but not much. A nice article, all things considered. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With edits made, passed. Good job well done, as we like to say where I come from :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]