Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956

1956 Hungarian Revolution

October 23, 2006 is the 50th anniversary of this uprising when Hungarian citizens dared to expel the Soviet military. This article was originally B-rated, but several editors have expanded content and references in several sections since then. An independent review would be very helpful in moving to an A rating, possibly even to featured article status by the anniversary date. Thanks in advance Ryanjo 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

This is pretty good. Some points that need work, though:

The lead section should be ~3 full paragraphs, and needs to summarize the entire article; absorbing most of the "Overview" section may be appropriate. Having footnotes in the lead is generally a bad idea, as everything there should be present—and cited—deeper in the article.
Is the title correct? I would have placed the article at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or Hungarian Revolution (1956); starting the title with a number is rather clunky, particularly if it's just a way of getting the date in there for disambiguation purposes.
More citations throughout would be good for an article of this size. The "Historical debate" section, in particular, needs to be thoroughly cited.
Can the "Causes" section be rolled into the prelude or historical debate sections? It's rather stubby on its own.
The "The revolution" header is redundant; I suggest removing it and bumping its sub-headers up a level.
The dates in the headers should be linked so that date preferences work properly.
I'm a bit surprised at the sourcing, as much of it seems to be isolated articles and papers; are there no full-length books published on this topic?
The "See also" and "External links" sections should be trimmed as much as possible.
The gigantic template at the bottom has grown to the point where it's utterly unacceptable. I strongly suggest linking to Portal:Cold War instead.

Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response to the peer review request.

Regarding 1956 preceeding Hungarian Revolution, this was discussed early in the article history, and done to comply with several other Hungarian Revolutions (disambiguation page). I think it may be acceptable format in Wikipedia, such as 2000 Summer Olympics. I am going to start a discussion about changing the name to Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which I agree is a better title, and amend the disambiguation page..
Can you refer me to an example of the suggested way to link the dates in the section titles, and where to put the link to the Portal:Cold War? Regards Ryanjo 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To link the dates, we would replace, say, "23 October to 4 November" with "23 October to 4 November".
The portal link should just replace {{Cold War}} with {{portal|Cold War}}; but you might want to wait on the outcome of the discussion here about a general way of handling these templates.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions: Why trim the "See also" and "External links" sections? Also, what is considered pertinent in these sections? Would it help to add a brief phrase regarding pertinence of the link or group into related subsections? Thanks, Ryanjo 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, featured articles shouldn't have "See also" sections; if something isn't worth mentioning (and hence linking) in the text, it's probably not worth mentioning at all. As far as external links go, there's some decent advice at WP:EL; but the general principle is that links need to offer additional (useful) content beyond that which could be added to the article itself. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UberCryxic

Kirill covered the big points. I just want to say it would be so freaking sweet if we could get this article to FA and on the Main Page in time. Right now the biggest challenge I see is the sources. Yeah you really need to get some books or published scholarly papers in there. I'm sure tons of material has been written about an event like this.UberCryxic 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks, that's my focus now. Ryanjo 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oldwindybear

EXCELLENT article, historically accurate, and fair. There are only one thing that needs immediate addressing:

1) SOURCING - there have been numerous books written on the tragedy of 1956, as the US encouraged the revolt, then abandoned them to their fate when the Soviets moved in. We need sourcing throughout, and especially from some of the excellent books written on the revolt, such as "The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents," by Csaba Bekes, Malcolm Byrne, and Janos Rainer, or "Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, And the 1956 Hungarian Revolt" (Cold War International History Project Series) by Charles Gati. old windy bear 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these references. I will dig these up and include them as they apply. Ryanjo 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanjo You are more than welcome - you did an excellent job on this article, and all it lacks is the sourcing for an A rating. If you need additional sources, let me know, and I will gladly find you some more, because you did a job worthy of an A rating. old windy bear 01:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]