We also conclude that the only authority for the proposition that merely naming the charge is substantial compliance with Rule 402(a)(1) consists of the pre- Krantz cases of the First, Second, and Third Districts. For another survey of the Illinois decisions, see People v. Coleman (1974), 23 Ill. App.3d 669, 320 N.E.2d 125. The issue has not been presented in any post- Krantz decision which we have been able to find, because in those cases consideration of the entire trial record has supplied additional factors which in totality were held to constitute substantial compliance.