Talk:Russian military deception/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm in the process of gathering the source material, some of which will be coming through inter-library loan. That will delay my actual progress on this review; I'll be started once everything arrives. I've read the disastrous past GA review(s) as well as the peer review. I'm looking forward to going through this line by line and giving you a fair determination. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Stalingrad section you mention Stavka but provide neither a link nor an explanation. The same is true in the Crimea section where the average reader might not recognize the term cossack. Similarly, I see no reason to qualify a comment coming from "US Air Force Major General Gen Davis" when it would make more sense to just say "a US Air Force General" since we don't have an article on "Skip" Davis.Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   222 of Clarke does not substantiate the "scraps" comment nor the underestimation of forces. That information is on 211. 210 of Clarke doesn't substantiate the use of deception. 260 and 262 don't cover the underestimation of forces. The "unnoticed" comment is on 264, not 278. 278 doesn't support the tank defilade, either. Clarke published a different book in 2012, Kursk was 2011; please fix all those citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. They're from the 2011 paperback. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

   Albats page 170 is the source of the Sun Tsu quote but it doesn't substantiate the claim that the KGB read it.

   Fixed.

   "Denial" isn't covered much in Smith and this doesn't mention it, at all, as a type of maskirovka. Denial (from a D&D perspective) is about denying the opposition an opportunity to collect data, not a literal gov't denial. I'd remove that row entirely.

   Removed.

   There's also no reason to link to "disinformation" twice in that table.

   Fixed.

   Neither Bar-Joseph nor Frank & Gillette nor Vego support that sentence. Each of them help define maskirovka so I'd move those citations somewhere else and write a sentence for them. The sentence itself needs rewritten: the two terms are maskivoka and khitrost. Glantz defines these in more than one of his books although you could also use this.

   Thanks, rewritten and cited.

   The Shea reference is buried in the "further reading" when it should be with the other sources.

   Moved.

   The Connor cite should continue through to page 30 across the board. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed.

   The Lindley-French quote occurs on page 1. The Ash-Hickman BBC citation belongs at the end of the sentence. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   On page 6 of Glantz, he translates the 1924 directive so it's a bit misleading to say those were his words.

   Fixed.

   On page 113 Glantz says "greatest feat" not "greatest achievement." You could either take away the quotation marks and the phrasing would be fine or you'd have to fix the quote.

   Fixed quote.

   153 of Glantz doesn't support the "thousands of anti-tank guns" claim. He talks about fake gun positions and mentions air defense or general guns (artillery?) but doesn't specify anti-tank.

   Used Clark, 200 antitank guns per mile, p. 212.

   It makes no sense to have a footnote that says "The authors state that they are summarizing from Glantz, 1989.". Which authors? Clark and Frankson, et al? Where? I'd remove that footnote entirely.

   Removed.

   I see no sense in including the Frankson/Zetterling citation. Nothing in the text covers that sentence or the wider issue, except for the footnote from the Slavic Studies article. I'd remove that, too.

   Removed.

   The UA Today link is broken and I can't find that story on the website anymore.

   Removed.

   The Ukraine Authorities Clear Kharkiv citation doesn't support the sentence. The other citations there really speak more to the presence of Russian citizens or pro-Russia supporters. I'd trim those back. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   Removed several such sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything that needs citations has them. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Thus far no evidence of COPYVIO but I'll be looking for close paraphrasing as I go through the source material. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No mention of Battle of Kulikovo? It was brought up in the BBC source about Crimea. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Why not. I've added a brief mention, and said the example is still cited; and why not a PD image too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No evidence of edit-warring here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Both File:194407 abandoned german vehicles belarus.jpg and File:IS-1 Kursk.gif lack proper US permission to use. The latter picture is not in public domain in the US as the photographer didn't die before '66. I'd take care of that issue or remove the images. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

   They're ok. It's going to be hard to find good images of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, it's been very tricky. The images on the web that are probably free (Russian army photos) are in the main not well documented. If a Russian-speaking expert ever reads this, their help would be much appreciated. I've given Bagration a map instead: it usefully shows the enormous scale of the battle, and the three encirclements of Army Group Centre. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Chiswick Chap: This is on-hold for your corrections. After that, I think we'll be fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Chris troutman: Thank you. I think I've fixed all of those now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   Then we're done. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It was a piece of work, and worth the wait. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)