Talk:Maskirovka/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Altenmann (talk · contribs) 08:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The article is full of original research and big confusion. It is no wonder there is no corresponding Russian article. The work itself in Russian means military camouflage (which does link to the ru: article). -M.Altenmann >t 08:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, thank you for taking this on. I wish to be totally helpful and co-operative with you in this review, but I feel I must rebut your claims in outline, so that we can proceed constructively and amicably.

On "original research", I must agree with you that the lead and definition sections were cluttered and repetitive with IP edits and OR-ish phrases: I have now cut all that I found, so I hope that what is left is clear, justified by citations, and readable.

On "big confusion", the opinions are derived straightforwardly from the named sources, not Wikipedia editors. Of course any faults or infelicities in expression must be fixed as usual.

On the equation with military camouflage, that article is linked to articles in several languages but not Russian (though there is a reverse link); the camouflage article is rightly linked to the Russian "Камуфляж". The article "Маскировка (военное дело)" is explicitly limited to military usage of the term and appears not to cover even the Second World War Russian military understanding of maskirovka to include wider meanings including masking with smoke, feints, dummies, and deception.

The maskirovka article itself states that camouflage was a very early meaning, which still persists, but that successive definitions (from Russian sources) make it clear that there are broader meanings which have become more prevalent with time; and those broader meanings equate to English-speaking understanding of the Russian doctrine and practice which are the subject of the article. We must not fall into the etymological fallacy (maskirovka, masque, hiding, i.e. camouflage) of equating the derivation of words with meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "military camouflage ... but not Russian" The reason of missing link is a drawback of the wikidata, which does hold link from ru:Маскировка (военное дело) to English. (I fixed the problem) -M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

re: The article "Маскировка (военное дело)"... appears not to cover... -- What's your point? This simply means that Russian article is underdeveloped, neglected. -M.Altenmann >t 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on this; my point is simply that there is more to the topic of maskirovka than military camouflage, though that is part of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please explain why the article cannot be named Deception in Russian military doctrine. IMO borrowing a Russian term is unwarranted. For example,As analysed by Charles Smith in 1988, maskirovka is "a set of processes designed to mislead, confuse, and interfere with accurate data collection regarding all areas of Soviet plans, objectives, and strengths or weaknesses." In addition, Smith identifies different dimensions of maskirovka. He divides it into multiple types – optical, thermal, radar, radio, sound/silence; multiple environments – aquatic, space, atmosphere – each involving active or passive measures; and organizational aspects – mobility, level, and organization. - I have no idea why Smith used the Russian word, but he clearly speaks of military deception. -M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It could certainly be called that, and your suggestion is probably well worth making into a redirect; but the citations demonstrate that the term is in wide use as a loan-word in English, both among historians and among journalists. We also use, for example, Smorgasbord, Schadenfreude, Weltanschauung, Joie de vivre, Divan, Caravan, Amok, Aficionado, Ayahuasca; not to mention Babushka, Balalaika, Balaclava (hat), Intelligentsia, Bolshevik, Commissar, Perestroika, Glasnost and so on. I'm afraid that Maskirovka is already more than well enough established (for some decades now, certainly since 1995) as an English word to be notable in its own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The article says "Maskirovka in the form of secrecy and deception" which is bullshit. It is military deception. Period. The article is full correct usage of correct terms ("secrecy", "deception", etc.) but is peppered with the word maskirovka to create an illusion it is something very special Russian "samovar" for which English does not even have a special word. -M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss the secrecy later; I am willing to concede the point, though different sources do include security within the maskirovka umbrella. I would ask, though, that we discuss these points civilly. There is ample evidence that Russian thinking does take military deception extremely seriously, to the point where it makes sense to treat it as the subject of an article, whether that is called Deception in Russian military doctrine or anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The article 80% consists of examples of several battles. I strongly suspect that the non-Russian sources cited do not used the word "maskirovka". A random source picked is titled "Hansen, James H. "Soviet Deception in the Cuban Missile Crisis" -- a correct English word. Therefore formally these examples are formally a coatrack or origina research.-M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

On this point I am happy to reassure you that the non-Russian sources do indeed use the word; some of them are already supported with quotations to that effect, and more can be supplied. For example,

1. Clark 2011 uses "maskirovka" on page 222.
2. Paul Adair's "Hitler's Greatest Defeat", Rigel, 1994, (on Operation Bagration) uses it on pages 56–61.
3. Pringle 2006 uses it on page xvi.
4. The HTML version of Smith 1988 is not paginated but "maskirovka" occurs in paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and many others.

Since the sources themselves do use the term, there is no coatrack here; historians assert that these major battles were major instances of the application of maskirovka. And since we agree that Russian military deception is a major meaning of the term, it is hardly surprising that Russian victories should be important as examples of its application in practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I have added a number of quotations both to prove that the sources do indeed use the word, and to illustrate the many strands of the concept. I have also added the example of Czechoslovakia, where as in Cuba, the maskirovka began in peacetime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The last example writes The Russian military disguised its actions, and denied them - but those "little green men" who popped up in the Black Sea peninsula were a textbook case of the Russian practice of military deception - or maskirovka .. the hallmark of Russian warfare and a word which translates as "something masked". I.e., this is exactly what I wrote above "maskirovka" is Deception in Russian military doctrine. And the M-word thrown in just for Russian exotics, the way the word wikt:mouzhik was used in 19th century in reference to Russian peasant. And I am 90% sure that the reporter picked this word from wikipedia :-) rather than from military textbooks. -M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This particular usage is indeed of Russian military deception, you are correct; that however does not negate the fact that the term also continues to have other meanings, including for example "simple military camouflage", "battlefield screening with smoke" and "political denial and deception". The term is therefore useful in its own right, as its wide extension does not readily match any other term already in the English language, but it does describe an important and long-lived strand in Russian thinking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If there are other meanings, they must have separate articles. And this is not "Russian thinking" this is merely an example of the widespread fact that semantic coverage of words from different languages do not always exactly overlap, a major hurdle for machine translation. And wikipedia article must be devoted to a concept, not to a term. -M.Altenmann >t 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Russian doctrine of maskirovka may have a single purpose, to deceive; but if so, this is not confined to wartime, and certainly not limited to any particular means such as camouflage, even though the term may once have been used in that way. I broadly agree with you that the article should cover the concept, though it must cover the history or evolution of that concept, which may span variations in usage. Where the term was used simply to mean, say, "camouflage", then of course the existing article on that topic is sufficient; my point above was that maskirovka grew as a concept to encompass multiple means of battlefield concealment, and (at some stage) also a wide range of off-battlefield means of spreading confusion or error in the enemy's mind, so when someone called something maskirovka, they could be referring to things at many different scales. Maskirovka certainly is a strand in Russian thought; and it is not too much to say that no other nation could have done what is documented in the article, from Stalingrad to Czechoslovakia: these events astounded both enemies and onlookers - indeed, both could be said to be admiring, in a certain way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I firmly stand on the position that the article introduces an unnecessary neologism. If removed definitions which actually "military deception" and examples of Soviet military deception, there is nothing left. -M.Altenmann >t 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is simply a misconception. Firstly the term has been used by English historians for some decades. Secondly, the term is used more widely than military deception to include peacetime and intelligence deception. Thirdly, even if (which the citations demonstrate not to be the case) the term were used in English only as a synonym for "Deception in Russian military doctrine", leaving aside its usage as "Deception in Russian political, peacetime, and intelligence doctrine", it would still be a useful concept, simply because of the weight given to it both in Russian doctrine and in documented Western beliefs about that doctrine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another small example of sloppiness, which tells of the knowledge of the article authors and their ability to read sources correctly, without twisting them into their preconceived notion (that maskirovka is something special): The intro says: Later versions of the doctrine also include strategic, political, and diplomatic objectives. Which is a false twist. The text must actually say (and I am fixing it now) "...strategic, political, and diplomatic means" - because this even explicitly written in the article text below: Strategic maskirovka is carried out at national and theater levels to mislead the enemy as to political and military capabilities, intentions and timing of actions. It includes political, economic and diplomatic measures as well as military. I.e the objective is singe: military deception. -M.Altenmann >t 17:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please "Assume Good Faith". I am happy to accept your correction but no attempt has been made to twist anything; and as you say, the quotation can speak for itself, so it would be an odd place to attempt to do any twisting of meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No bad faith. If you feel offended, I am sorry. I war referring to the fact that people may unwittingly misread something in order to fit this into their worldview or theory. Yes, the quotation speaks for itself, but I was referring to a word in the intro, which I fixed since then. -M.Altenmann >t 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, and the fix to the intro. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am not an expert in military, but here you go: Denial and deception, which says that this ius a Western doctrine based on the Russion concept of Maskirovka, which indeed combines camouflage and deception into one. So, why don't you combine the two articles (D&D and M) into one? Not to say the two involved concepts have their own pages, military deception and military camouflage -M.Altenmann >t 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not an expert in Western intelligence, military or otherwise, but the D&D article begins (with citations) "Denial and deception (D&D) is a Western theoretical framework[1] for conceiving and analyzing intelligence techniques pertaining to secrecy and deception.[2] Originating in the 1980s, it is roughly based on the more pragmatic Soviet practices of maskirovka (which preceded the D&D conceptualization by decades) but it has a more theoretical approach compared to the latter.[1]" This suggests that Western D&D and Russian maskirovka are not identical. Certainly, maskirovka has a different history, and if we believe the article it also has a more pragmatic, less theoretical approach. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not understanding this distinction of the pragmatic and theory. Perhaps it means that the west has more pretentious bullshit but, given that such analysis is itself part of the game, it's not clear that we have any sources that we can really rely upon. All great powers seem to engage in such deception - "in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" - and it's not clear that differences in Russian practice are anything more than circumstantial. Perhaps this concept of the Russians being especially sneaky is just propaganda, contrary to WP:NPOV? Consider, for example, the source When Presidents Lie. It is an interesting coincidence that its author's name is Alterman — but he's no relation, I suppose... Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Andrew D.: The pragmatism is the opinion of one source, and yes that does sound vague. Let's go back to basics. Maskirovka is a well-documented Russian military doctrine, developed through peace and war; its Russian name is now familiar also in the West; it is an exceptionally strong national variety of military denial and deception, integrated into the whole political and military approach to achieving the Kremlin's goals; it was the approach which contributed to victory in the turning-point battle of the Second World War, Stalingrad, and at least two more of the largest Russian victories in that war, Kursk and Bagration, both shattering surprises for the Third Reich, despite all the clues the OKH had to what might happen and where. It is thus a solidly notable topic for an article - remarkably different in its history from any western equivalent. Nobody is arguing that the Russians are "especially sneaky"; but there is proof that the Red Army was extremely effective at camouflage and deception in one battle after another. There is also no doubt that denial has been a major tool in more recent events documented in the article, from Czechoslovakia onwards. By the way Altenmann is a reviewer, I'm the nominator, so I'm not sure of your point there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• The general thesis here still seems to be that this is a special Russian thing. For example, the template {{military deception}} has it as a particular entry. That template doesn't seem to focus on other nations except perhaps with ruse de guerre but it's not clear why the French language is being used there as that's not especially a French thing, is it? My position is that all nations do this and so our coverage should be even-handed rather than cherry-picking to emphasise a nationalist thesis. As this is the English language encyclopedia, we should use the English language for such concepts and there's certainly no shortage of examples of the English using such tricks themselves - see A Genius for Deception, for example. Even taking the concept at face value, there's more work to be done. For example, consider the origin of the concept. The article currently says "Maskirovka was developed as a military doctrine in the 1920s" but this is misleading. For example, this paper says, "the Russian Army had a military maskirovka school as early as 1904 that was later disbanded in 1929. This school, the Higher School of Maskirovka, provided the bases for maskirovka concepts and created manuals for future generations." The general concept in Russian military circles may go back even further. For example, in this interview, Alexander Vladimirov is said to be an authority and he traces it back to the Battle of Kulikovo. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kulikovo is already mentioned and cited in the article. Thanks for the Thomas link, have mentioned it. It's interesting but doesn't change the fact that the doctrine and practice were greatly enlarged in WWII. On cherry-picking, every single article on Wikipedia is a cherry in that sense, however much many of them are related to other topics with wikilinks, main links, further links, see alsos and all the rest. We have in maskirovka an outstandingly successful doctrine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• P.S. That link to Vladimirov takes us to a footballer not the general and demonstrates the difficulty we have in engaging with Russian topics. How can we state such things with confidence when we're not even sure of the players? Russian history is notoriously political... Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A good reason for avoiding recentism, and sticking with what reliable historians have documented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If the proponent wants to go with the idea that the Russians are smartest cheaters, good luck (Russians themselves actually say the Chinese are :-). However the cited BBC article has a "masterpice" I cannot help but quote here, to show the whole absurdness of the article title "Maskirovka":

"The elements of maskirovka

<...>

• Skrytie - concealment
• Imitatsia - the use of decoys and military dummies
• Dezinformatsia - disinformation, a knowing attempt to deceive"

Now, what's your next step? write articles Skrytie, Imitatsia, Dezinformatsia? -M.Altenmann >t 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• See list of English words of Russian origin for some precedents. Maskirovka isn't in that list but I do agree with Chiswick Chap that it gets enough usage in English language sources that it should be a blue link. I'm thinking that it ought to lead to a section in military deception where Russian exploits can be presented in context and balanced with those of other countries. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Russians/Soviets have made this a fine art with their own methods, nuances and understandings. This is not to condemn or criticize them, or to make comparisons with other governments or institutions. Indeed, the article makes it clear that the Russian army has worked this, in these terms, for more than a century. It deserves its own stand alone article. We are talking about what is, and those facts are important and should be understood in the environment in which they have fluorished. There is already a multiplicity of sources that explore this concept in depth, expressly using the word. More of them will follow. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

This nomination has been stalled for two months. If I'm understanding all this correctly (which may well not be the case), the reviewer, Altenmann, appears to have abandoned it after declaring the entire notion of the article absurd, Andrew D. seems to have been making an argument that the article needs to cover more than just the Soviet/Russian side of things, while 7&6=thirteen seems to be agreeing with nominator Chiswick Chap that the article is appropriate as a standalone. This stalemate needs to be broken. Might we get someone knowledgeable in from the Milhist or Soviet wikiprojects to give a new opinion, or to take over the review? Or end the review without prejudice and put the nomination back into the reviewing pool? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is a GA review, right? Altenmann was the reviewer and it seems fairly clear that he's not accepting it as a GA. As a second opinion, I tend to agree with his general position, and think this should be marked as a fail. It wouldn't be correct to go fishing around to find other people with a more supportive view - that's not the GA process, right? As food for thought and further work, note that we have an article Perfidious Albion, about the supposed perfidy of the British. I'm thinking that we might have an article about Italian cowardice - a stereotype which goes back to the 15th century, according to some sources. Such nationalist military stereotypes are always going to be controversial and difficult as topics. So it goes... Andrew D. (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew D., this is a review of a GAN, yes (but not a GAR, which is a Good Article Reassessment). If Altenmann meant to fail it, then he needs to do so now, and frankly should have done so two months ago, but I just noticed that this is his first GA review (at least since the review counter was set up), which may explain his failure to properly conclude it. If he doesn't complete it, however, I think we need to start from scratch with a new review. (It doesn't seem appropriate to preemptively pick either you or 7&6=thirteen for that review, since you've both already weighed in.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The topic seems sufficiently controversial that the opinion of a single editor should not be decisive. This therefore indicates that community reassessment would be the next step per WP:GAR, "Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or fail during a good article nomination.". Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• That may be the best notion, since it seems clear that any review result is going to be challenged, but you can't have a reassessment without an initial final assessment, which Altenmann still hasn't done despite posting just below. We appear to be at an impasse. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:Altenmann, appears to have abandoned it after declaring the entire notion of the article absurd -- I don't know what you means by "the whole notion". Absurdity is in the usage of a russian word for a concept that existed well before Russians themselves. There is a native modern English military term for this. The Russian peculiarities must be described in an article which title clearly says so: D&D in Russian military doctrine. There is nothing unusual that each national military has its own peculiarities. The selection of the title and lack of global coverage creates an illusion of Russian uniqueness, which is not. The article is ridiculously peppered with unnecessary Russian words (khitrost, sheesh!). It is normal to use non-English words to describe cultural peculiarities absent in English culture: samovar, matryoshka, hijab, kismet. But this is not the case here. And the state of the article, complete with a coatrack, is IMO a consequence of a poor choice of the title, giving it wrong focus. Googling for the word to compile the article served the author bad service. To say that Russians in Crimea were wearing masks as an example of maskirovka is bullshit. For starters, they were not wearing masks, they were wearing balaclavas. Just read 'balaclava' article on why people are wearing it. I do not want to waste my time on picking other kind of minor nonsense in the article. If the author desperately wants it, he can have it. But to call it a 'good artcile' IMO is a deception (but not 'maskirovka' :-). -M.Altenmann >t 15:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann, I just did some checking on the article's history, and noticed that you made a successful AfD nomination of it back in early 2007, shortly after the article was created, and as a result it was redirected to "military deception". The article was reconstituted by Victor falk about a year ago, and expanded earlier this year by Chiswick Chap . Perhaps, even though the article is quite long, you should do a new AfD? That would more directly address your contention that there should not be an article with this title, which seems unchanged from 2007. In any event, since you have undertaken this review, you need either to come to a final decision based on the WP:WIAGA standards, or to withdraw from the review. Given your caveats, both as to title and as to certain facts, I don't see how it would be tenable for you to pass it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember what was in the article in 2007, but I don't nominate this one because the material is obviously salvageable, and, in addition to criticism, I explained how. Wikipedia is not a college PASS/FAIL exam and I am not a professor in final instance to you. My arguments may be challenged by counter-arguments. This is how things are done in wikipedia: consensus-building. -M.Altenmann >t 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This "controversy" is a combination of Maskirovka, Bullshit and Ipse dixit. Altenmann I will assume is WP:AGF. However, all we are doing here is stalling a fair evaluation of the merits of the article. The distinction between "mask" and "balaclava" that covers the face is not even interesting, let alone material.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The nominations is "stalling" because it looks like it dos not come to your mind that things can be discussed. if you assume AGF, then why don't you address my arguments with all AGF you have and prove that I am wrong. Otherwise I am right, right? I linked "balaclava" not because I am a smartass picking on trivialities; I gave a specific advice to read this article so that you understand that this piece cited from a newspaper (which is not an expert in military doctrine) is bullshitting. And uncritically using it in this article is detrimental to its quality. So, did you read "balaclava" or you want me to cut/and paste its text here? As for the cited article in Huffington Post, citing it without explanation what author had in mind is useless and misleading. Now, read the HuPo article and fix the useless (contextless and misleading) sentence in our article. Then I will believe that the authors truly understand what they are reading and there is a chance that they make sense with our article, not just blindly cut and paste sources (and references thereto) which happen to use the word "maskirovka". -M.Altenmann >t 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

All that said, I have reread the article and see that all my objections, if taken seriously, without being annoyed with this nasty Altenmann who stalls the process, can be easily addressed by several tweaks in the article: (a) to shift its focus to the end that Russians invented nothing new; they merely put all this stuff into a military doctrine in a systematic way; (b) (c) (d) (what else I did not like?) This is how an article review is supposed to work: resolving the problems raised. Whining that it is stalled and pointing a finger at me is childish maskirovka. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: This review needs to be closed. Doesn't look like any progress has been made in over a month.--Dom497 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review by Dom497

Ok, so two things I noticed upon doing a quick scan of the article:

1. "The book is widely cited by KGB officers in charge of disinformation operations in Vladimir Volkoff's novel Le Montage." - Needs to be sourced.

Removed as off-topic and unsourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. You seem to be quoting books/news articles word for word, a lot. Change it up a bit, change the quotes to your own words.

Replaced most of the quotes with paraphrases, deleted a few others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I will continue once these two issues are fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll have these ready within a day or two and get back to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dom497 - OK, that wasn't too difficult. See what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, this article may not be for me to review. When I said I would review it, it didn't seem like that complicated of a review. I'm confused of the significance of this term just by reading the lead and I believe this article could easily be merged into several other articles (about the battles). Sorry, I really jumped the gun on this one.--Dom497 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It might just be better to end this review and wait for a new review.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you feel. The article is entirely about maskirovka: the coverage of the battles is purely to explain how it was applied at different times, and how the concept grew with time. It began purely as camouflage, took in screening with smoke, moved on to making troop movements without being seen, and added the meaning of deception to simply keeping the enemy in ignorance. In a way, it's a simple enough progression. If you think I can add that to the lead, I'll happily do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review by Wugapodes

I'm going to WP:IAR and take this over so that the process can move forward and next steps can be taken.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions are largely confusing and don't help me understand what they have to do with the text

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• The whole first paragraph of "Definitions" is WP:OR
• a daimyo named Takeda Shingen (1521–1573) is said said by whom?
• This article needs a lot of work, particularly because it seems to be about the history of Maskirovka rather than the term itself. Further, I agree with the original reviewer that the title seems a poor choice as the text reads more like the history of deception in Russian Military than of the term, especially since a good quarter of the article is just quotes from dictionaries about how the term has changed over time.
• Images are largely decoration and don't particularly enhance understanding of the article.
• Much of the writing seems to use weasel words or other words to watch, and at times seems to synthesize sources in violation of WP:SYNTH (for example, the first paragraph of "Definitions").
• The use of notes seems weird, I don't know why that information isn't included in the prose.
• The article seems to only focus on the term from a Russian point of view without any regard for things such as countermeasures or reactions from other nation-states. Thus it seems non-neutral or at least not broad in its coverage.
• If the article is about Maskirovka as the title says, it is not focused as it goes off on tangents about things that seem not to be Maskirovka, but I'm not sure because the article offers a dozen different definitions of the term.

Results

Not Listed This article is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I recommend a peer review before renominating, and possibly think about a title change. Wugapodes (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Caption

Sorry I don't know exactly how to write about an error so I'm just editing at the bottom of the page. The caption for the photo on the top of the page is inaccurate. It states that it is an IS-2 at the Battle of Kursk, this can't be for 2 reasons, First, the IS-2 wasn't present at Kursk, it first saw action in the winter of 43/44 while the battle took place in July '43. There might have been IS-1s there but it is clear from the muzzle brake that the gun is 122mm not the 85mm gun used on the IS-1. The second is the foliage in the photo, Kursk is in the steppes, mostly grassland and forests in the area don't contain conifers which are present in the taiga areas further north. So, the photo was probably taken nearer the baltic in 1944-45. Don't know how to cite but here is a page I used. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_IS-II.php this info can be found on multiple pages on Wikipedia as well