Talk:52nd Rocket Division

Interfax-AVN insertion

Kges1901 hope this text insert from 31st Rocket Army helps with writing out the next section. Rewrite as you will; source is in the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Is there additional bibliographical information, such as a title, for the AVN article? I'd like to know if you have it because that way I can create a complete "verifiable" citation. Also, is the insert all of the information in the article? Kges1901 (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've linked and rewritten some of the text to link to WP entries, but yes, those articles were typically very short. There probably was a title to the article; I'll have to hunt for it. Thanks for all your hard work on the SRF!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems I stole it from FAS: https://fas.org/irp/world/russia/fbis/StrategicMissileTroops.html. Copyright remains with Interfax-AVN, so while FAS may have reproduced it, we need to rewrite it. I'll delete and revdel the 31 Rocket Army article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Reading the FAS article, it doesn't mention Cumberland. I can't think of what this could be in America as the most prominent Cumberlands in my country are backwaters and I doubt that Cumberland, Maryland would be involved in CTRP.Kges1901 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence of the article was changed from "sent to Cumberland" to "sent to scrapping". Likely a bad translation. Worth keeping on looking for the original article, but Omsk Strategic that you're using may answer the question - where were the ICBMs scrapped? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:52nd Rocket Division/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 01:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the 23rd Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division doesn't have its own article, since much of the article outlines the history of the 23rd Division (1339 words of prose)? IMHO, its history seems more noteworthy than that of the 52nd Division, which by comparison only has 835 words of prose in the body.

• To create longer articles I generally combine histories of units that share lineage so as to avoid content duplication. Additionally 52nd Division on its own would not be long enough for GA. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so if you combine the 23rd and 97th Divisions so that they are intrinsic components of the article, shouldn't "23rd Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division" and "97th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division" also be bolded in the lead? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Graivoron" – consistency of spelling.

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "It fought in fierce fighting" → "It engaged in fierce fighting"

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The division fought in stubborn fighting for" → "the division stubbornly fought"

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "the division fought in heavy fighting" → "the division engaged in heavy fighting"

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "After the capture of Kiev during the Battle of Kiev in early November" → "After the capture of Kiev in early November"; the capture of Kiev ended the Battle of Kiev.

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "It fought in the capture of" → "It helped capture"

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Minor point, but why are plural s's following some wikilinks not part of the links themselves?

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe relink "railway strategic missile trains" as "railway strategic missile trains" ({{ill|railway strategic missile trains|ru|Боевой железнодорожный ракетный комплекс}}). --Sp33dyphil (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: