Talk:Cold War/GA1

GA Review

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

I've placed this article on hold until the following points can be dealt with:

• "it portrayed the US as being in the grip of monopoly capital building up military capability ...". I've got no idea what that means.
  • The original source reads: "The Novikov telegram portrays a United States in the grip of monopoly capital which is building up military capability..." I'm willing to do some rephrasing, and will gladly accept suggestions, but it seems pretty clear to me: the telegram asserted the US was controlled by monopoly capitalists who were (allegedly) boosting the military in order to win a new world war. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "... in the grip of monopoly capitalists who were building up military capability" seems much clearer to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "According to this view, the Western Allies had joined the conflict at the last moment in order to influence the peace settlement and dominate Europe." This doesn't make sense to me, as many of the Western Allies had been fighting since 1939, before the Soviet Union joined the conflict.

• "Social democrats in Europe, not to mention moderate and conservative parties ...". "Not to mention" seems rather too informal a register for an encyclopedia article.

• "... Eisenhower resolved to reduce military spending by brandishing the United States' nuclear superiority while continuing to fight the Cold War effectively." I don't understand what this is trying to say.

• "Nikita Khrushchev soon became the dominant leader of the USSR". Why dominant leader?

• "Possessing nuclear superiority, for example, Eisenhower curtailed Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East during the 1956 Suez Crisis." This sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

• "The US government utilized the CIA in order to remove a string of unfriendly Third World governments and to support others." The CIA was supporting other unfriendly Third World governments?

• The article seems to use a mixture of American and British English spelling, eg. "labor", "rumor", and "defence".

• "... this escalation, the USSR's first in a regional conflict central to US interests, inaugurated a new and more turbulent stage of Third World military activism and made use of the new Soviet strategic parity." How can an escalation make use of anything?

This article is a real tour de force which all the contributors should feel proud of. Just a few small points above to be dealt with before I list this as a GA.

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Except for the spelling issue, I think all points have been addressed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think so too, thanks for dealing with them so promptly. I think I've dealt with the spelling issue, so that everything is now consistent American English. As I said before, this is a really nice article which I'm pleased to be now able to list as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.