Talk:The KGB and Soviet Disinformation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   Lead

   The first time I read the opening sentence, I thought this book was used by the KGB. I suggest changing "book about disinformation and information warfare used by the KGB during the Soviet Union period" to "book about the KGB's use of disinformation and information warfare during the Soviet Union period"

   "He warns..." in the book?

   The authors of the two reviews in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence aren't named here or in the body. They should be in one of the two.

   Background

   "to recruit as secret agents in Europe, reporters that " - suggest "to recruit European reporters as secret agents that..."

   "While there, he taughtin the field " - missing a space

   "While there, he taught in the field of disinformation.[1] Bittman taught journalism at BU..." I feel like these thoughts should be combined.

   "the first academic center of its kind in the U.S., to focus on the study of disinformation" - I think you can strike "of its kind". Also, the comma isn't needed.

   Contents summary

   "Ideally such methods..." - comma needed after ideally

   "The operation targeted an Ambassador from Indonesia" - this links to a list of the current ambassadors from Indonesia. I can't find a better target, but I'm not sure this link is helpful, assuming the ambassador being discussed has been replaced.

   Release and reception

   As mentioned in the lead section, neither author from the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence is named in the article. I think names would be appropriate in both places, but should be used in at least one.

   "Another reviewer had" - not sure had is the right verb here.

   "The book was reviewed by Cesare Marongiu Buonaiuti," - and? What did he think? Also, the comma after the writer's name isn't needed.

   Other sections

   The first entry in Further reading is a duplicate of ref 4. Should be removed per Wikipedia:Further reading.

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

   no concern

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:

   Is Syracuse University Research Corporation the same as SRC Inc.? If so, it should be linked in the ref.

   The International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence is not linked in ref #10

   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:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returned minor hits due to attributed quotes and false positives caused by the long title.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   You mention blowback, unintended consequences, and their "the cumulative effect of negative political consequences to the Soviet Union", but aside from the failed attack on Dan Rather, all the examples were successful. Surely the author provided a concrete example of blowback that could be included in the article.

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

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

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

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

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

   no concern

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:

   no concern

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

   The caption for the infobox should specify that it is the cover of the book. The alt text for the infobox image should describe the image for readers who have images turned off.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass pending response to notes above. Excellent work on this - I think I'll buy a copy for my brother, who has an interest in this subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

   The nominator has not been an active editor for several months, and his talk page includes a banner indicating he has health problems. I corrected most of the issues I noted, but cannot address 3A without the book in hand. Regretfully, I must fail at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)