Talk:Polonsky conspiracy

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polonsky conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst(talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reviewer: AdobongPogi(talk · contribs) 15:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will review this within a week. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 15:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ping @Grnrchst, here's my review. I focused only on areas that may need improvement or further clarification. Anything not mentioned ("consider replacing" or green highlight) below appears satisfactory and does not require changes.

Lead

• (Note) The introduction provides a perfect summary of the conspiracy. Consider adding a little more or expansion context about the wider conflict between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists.
  • Added a bit more. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Consider replacing "The planned coup and the fallout that resulted from its suppression exacerbated the worsening relations" with "The planned coup and its suppression further worsened relations", as the original wording is redundant and could be made more concise.
  • Replaced.--Grnrchst (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Consider replacing "which culminated in the outbreak of an all-out conflict between them" with "which culminated in an all-out conflict between the two sides", as the original wording is slightly wordy and "them" is less precise.
  • Replaced. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Background

• (Note) The background provides useful context, but some earlier history of Bolshevik–anarchist cooperation could be shortened to keep the focus on the conspiracy. Consider adding more explanation of why relations between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovists had deteriorated by late 1919.
  • I've attempted to trim down the first paragraph, but let me know if anything more can be trimmed. The bit of information from Footman should hopefully have given a bit more context on the latter. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Consider replacing "quit" to "withdrew" "the Red Army quit Ukraine entirely" with "the Red Army withdrew from Ukraine".
  • Replaced. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Consider replacing "the main danger to the Makhnovshchina became the Bolsheviks" should be attributed or reworded to avoid presenting one side's view as fact, change this instead: "Following the defeat of the White movement in the region, the Bolsheviks emerged as the Makhnovshchina's principal rival". Or you may rewording on your own.
  • Replaced. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Plot

• (Note) Most information about the conspiracy comes from sources focused on the Makhnovist movement. Consider adding other historical perspectives if available. The following are some assertions regarding the Communist Party of Ukraine where further clarification might be required for proper attribution – formation of cells and recruitment within the army. Also the article mentions plans to mobilize armed workers and seize Nikopol. Consider clarifying whether these actions were carried out or remained plans.
  • I really have tried to look for more sources on this, but unfortunately, it's such a small event in the wider history that it appears only the sources that focus on the Makhnovist movement cover it. In the sources I have about the wider Russian Civil War (Mawdsley, Kenez, Smele, etc.), when they do focus on the Makhnovists, mostly provide a broad and brief coverage of the major events; none mention the Polonsky conspiracy. Sources I have that focus on the wider conflict in Ukraine (Velychenko, Hunczak, etc.) likewise don't seem to cover it. The only other source I found that mentions to Polonsky conspiracy was David Footman's book, which dedicated a whole chapter to the Makhnovists; and even here, there was only a paragraph's worth of information. I've added that. As for Nikopol, Azarov doesn't mention whether the plans were carried out; it's safe to assume this remained a plan, but I wouldn't want to say anything not explicitly stated in the cited sources. Azarov does later say that after the Red Army took over Ukraine in January 1920, Makhnovist leaders and members of the Kontrrazvedka in Nikopol were shot, but I'm not sure if this is connected enough to the conspiracy to mention. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That makes sense. If the available coverage is limited, noting the lack of broader treatment and adding Footman is a reasonable approach. I agree that it is best not to state that the Nikopol plans were carried out unless a source explicitly says so; leaving them described as plans avoids speculation and is consistent with not stating anything that is not explicitly supported by the cited sources. The later executions in Nikopol are probably best omitted unless a source directly connects them to the conspiracy. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 10:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• "The Polonsky conspiracy had developed amidst the actions taken by Makhno" reads a little awkwardly. Consider rephrasing it for smoother prose.
  • Rephrased. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "The committee recruited mutinous insurgents from former units of the Red Army, and packed command posts..." is quite long. Consider splitting it into shorter sentences to improve readability.
  • Broken up into shorter sentences. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "Despite the movements of the plot" is somewhat unclear. Consider rewording this phrase to better explain what is meant.
  • Reworded. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "their subversive activity" could be clarified by explicitly identifying who "their" refers to?
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "The CPU, which by this time controlled the entire 3rd and 33rd Divisions" may benefit from attribution or clarification, particularly if this reflects the interpretation of a specific source?
  • Per Malet: "The forces in the city included a cavalry regiment under Schus largely made up of tried Hulyai Pole comrades; Khoma Kozhyn, commander of the main machine-gun regiment, was another old friend of the Batko's. In neither of these was there a single communist cell. [...] Two other regiments are mentioned as definitely Makhnovist, one intermediate, while two, the 33rd and Polonsky's 3rd, were definitely pro-communist." I've attempted to reword, per the source, and attributed this to Michael Malet. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Execution

• (Note) Consider including additional information about the other members that were executed in the conspiracy, if any information is available. Other is need more explanation about the evidence found by the Kontrrazvedka, especially the poisoned food and documents.
  • Added a bit more about the other members. There wasn't much more about the poisoned food and documents, but I've tried to fill out the section more where I could. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
    • Upon re-reading Azarov and Malet for this review, I found that there's some disagreement between sources over the dates, which introduces ambiguity. I've attempted to address this, but let me know if this could be improved. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      I think the current wording reflects the dispute between Azarov and Malet well rather than justifying an ambiguous date as a fact. My only note is that the distinction between the different dates (meeting date versus execution date) could be kept clear for readers. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 11:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      It's not entirely a dispute between Azarov and Malet; Azarov himself mentions different dates for the execution as well. How might I clarify this distinction? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      Better to clarify that the inconsistency comes from the sources, including Azarov's own differing dates, rather than framin it solely as a disagreement between Azarov and Malet. However, the final wording is up to you. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 12:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      this separates the two issues. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 12:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      @AdobongPogi: Okay, I've attempted to disentangle the dates and attributed them to each of the sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• "After the conference ended, in the middle of the night" reads a little awkwardly. Consider rewording it for smoother prose.
  • Reworded. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "One of the conspirators was discovered with documents from their earlier meetings" could be rephrased for clarity, as it is not immediately clear who "their" refers to.
  • Rephrased. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• "The Kontrrazvedka swiftly sentenced the leaders of the conspiracy to death" may need clarification on whether this was a formal trial or a summary execution.
  • Clarified that it was a summary execution. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Aftermath

• (Note) The aftermath explains the consequences of the conspiracy, but the link between the affair and the later "Bolshevik–Makhnovist" conflict could be explained further. Consider adding more details about how the executions affected relations between communists and anarchists within the movement.
  • Attempted to rearrange and add a bit of detail about this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• ""made way for the Red Army to reenter the city" reads a little awkwardly. Consider rewording it to "allowing the Red Army to reenter the city" or "paving the way for the Red Army to reenter the city". It's up to you.
  • Reworded. --Grnrchst (talk)

Prose

• Some sentences are quite short especially the lead part and contain several events or names, need splitting them would improve readability. Consider adding short explanations for less familiar people and organizations when they are first mentioned. Last (make sure), check consistency in the use of terms such as "Insurgent Army", "Revolutionary Insurgent Army", and "Makhnovist army".
  • I've attempted to clarify things more in the background section, but let me know if there's more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

References

• Check citation formatting for consistency and verify if any duplicate references can be merge where appropriate.
  • Merged duplicate references. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Bibliography part is fine. No issues.

Images

• No issues.

Overall

(On hold). A very well-researched (nice) article and includes most of the important elements of the Polonsky conspiracy. The aspects that need improvement are some expansion in context and improved attributions for some statements. One important area to check is the "Prose" as noted above. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 04:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@AdobongPogi: Ok, I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if there's anything more I can do and I'll get right on it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I checked your revision history, and it looks good now. I have a few additional thoughts and recomendations for the article, but before I get to those, I have one remaining question for you.

• Was there any specific reason the Bolshevik underground was still able to operate openly after the conspiracy and executions, despite the deterioration in relations with the Makhnovists?
• Are there any details about the identities of the four additional conspirators who were arrested later?

AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 23:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@AdobongPogi: On point 1, it seems to be just because the Makhnovists didn't extend persecution of the Bolsheviks beyond the conspirators and maintained freedom of speech and association. Per Azarov: "For me the chief lesson to draw from this scandal is tolerance of the Makhnovist political system for nonconformism. Neither the Gubkom, nor rank-and-file Communists, were persecuted under the suspicion of being involved in the conspiracy, and their newspaper Zvesda continued to publish legally. For the Bolsheviks in an analogous situation this would have been simply unthinkable. For the Makhnovists the principles of freedom of speech and association were more precious than the emotions evoked by the conspiracy." As for the four additional conspirators, I would have provided their names if any of my sources did; I looked up a couple of the primary sources too and they only name the main five. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I believe the argument concerning the fact that even with the existence of the plot, the Makhnovists retained their right to freedom of speech and association is valid, and I believe that there is no need to list the names of the other conspirators if they are not named in the sources. Btw, you may also want to check No Harmless Power by Charlie Allison which discusses the relationship between Polonsky and Makhno (especially the Makhno's activity), if some context there that missing to add; I believe it would be an acceptable, and I'm going to double check the article as well. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 12:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@AdobongPogi: Allison's book, although a fun read for newcomers to the subject, is unfortunately not what I would describe as a serious history book, so I'm not very partial to citing it. His depiction of the Polonsky affair is rather sensationalised, uses some rather fluffy, fantastical language, and draws pretty much all of its information from Azarov, so there's nothing extra really to add from it. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Its up to you, hoping there's some other material information that will be add, it seems some part is lack, but the important here is the improvement for readers. I'm going to passed here now. Great job you're great hard work. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 13:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Did you know nomination

• Source: Azarov, Vyacheslav (2008). Kontrrazvedka - The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service. Translated by Archibald, Malcolm. Edmonton: Black Cat Press. pp.39–40. ISBN 978-0-9737827-2-1. OCLC 233786926.