(History) 'Is it more appropriate to characterise the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia as "popular" or "spontaneous"?'

This is an example of a typical GCSE question, or alternatively could appear as a 'prompt' to a source question on an A level paper. In any answer, it is important to consider both sides of the argument, before arriving at a sensible and supported conclusion: 

The February Revolution can be seen to have had popular support because of the major strike activity that preceeded it. By the 25th February 1917, over half of St. Petersburg's workforce was on strike, and 66,000 soldiers had mutinied to join the protests, their sympathies ultimately resting with the masses. Despite the differences in opinion between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviety regarding how the country should be run, there was ultimately agreement that the old system was no longer working - the subsequent 'Dual Power' arrangement reflected this. However, there is far more evidence to suggest that the Revolution was a spontaneous affair. The Petrograd Soviet and Provisional Government disagreed on a number of key points, such as the war with Germany, and their relationship quickly deteriorated. Furthermore, there was no obvious organisation from any of the radical political parties, such as the Socialist Revolutionaries, and with the leaders of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in exile, there was an obvious lack of coordination. The formation of a twelve-man provisional committee to take over the government was not planned - it was merely a knee-jerk reaction. The Revolution, if it can even be characterised as such given its apparent confinement to St Petersburg, was fundamentally based on the responses of a few individuals to events that were quickly changing. Spontaneity governed the developments in Russia in February 1917.