Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Russian Ground Forces
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:03, 10 October 2008 [1].

Russian Ground Forces edit

Review commentary edit

Notified Miyokan and Buckshot06 as regular contributors. Buckshot06 was the user who proposed the article. Also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'll freely admit to not being an expert but I was surprised to come across this article and see that it is at FA. The grammar needs much improvement, there are many instances of WP:peacock words, the infobox looks untidy, there is a lack of wp:wikilinks. It warrants copyediting at the very least. I would also suggest that quite a few sections are bordering violation of WP:NPOV. Please note that this isn't a criticism of the editors, but of the article itself. I would suggest that the prose needs much improvement and that it is not neutral. I think it has a lot of merit but needs work to keep it's FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to complete Project notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide specific examples of your concerns? The article doesn't have an infobox at present, by the way - those are navigation templates. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below, the image in the box on the right could certainly be tidied up, on my browsers it isn't centralised - a small point, but considering its at the top of the article I think it sets a bad example. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain a little background here. I wrote my MA thesis for King's College London's War Studies Department on the Russian Ground Forces in 2000. I have tried to reflect the best quality writing on the subject - the Conflict Studies Research Centre - in what I wrote, which has meant the use of terms analytically and a whole bunch of quotations. The Ground Forces emerge from that in a poor light, which I think reflects the real situation - it is a mess, to be honest. Miyokan will disagree, however I believe his particular views on subjects involving Russia reflect a lot of NPOV themselves - anyone who's interested in taking a look should check the attempts to make Russia a FA. Comments and violent disagreement welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are mainly with the poor quality of grammar - that was the first thing to grab my attention. There are also several instances of a questionable POV, particularly sections like "It has been a very divisive struggle, with at least one senior military officer dismissed for being less than responsive to government commands. General Colonel Gennady Troshev was dismissed in 2002 for refusing a move from command of the North Caucasus Military District to command of the less important Siberian Military District." and "Without having to account for their actions, they can choose to promote or not promote him, to send him to Moscow or to some "godforsaken post on the Chinese border." typify the problems I see. Can I recommend that you submit the article here as a starting point? I would also suggest splitting the references section up and having a separate Bibliography - that would make it much easier for readers to see immediately what print material has been used. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting specific areas where you see problems. Are you aware that the second one is a straight quote from a respected journalist in the field, chosen to illustrate a point? To be honest, I'm not sure what you see is wrong with the first one. Troshev was dismissed after a public spat with the Minister of Defence - not survivable in anyone's military. The references section, as per what I understood was the standard, lists only material utilised in the article, as you ask. I would have prefered to title it 'Bibliography,' but that's not the MOS - apparently there are reasons why we don't use the term 'bibliography.' If you've got specific areas of grammar concern, please tell me them and I'll work through them.
Well, "very divisive" is a somewhat questionable use of English, but that's my opinion only - personally I wouldn't use 'very', something is either divisive or not, again in my opinion. "less than responsive" - unless its a quote, I would just type "unresponsive". "Gennady Troshev was dismissed in 2002 for refusing a move from command of the North Caucasus Military District to command of the less important Siberian Military District." is unclear - I would substitute "to move" for "a move", the former implies an order, the latter implies a request - if it was either, then which one? It could be military terminology that I (or another casual reader) am unaware of. I had to read it about 3 times to understand the meaning. The second sentence was sloppy quoting from me, I actually meant to quote "Their morale is low, among other reasons, because their postings are entirely in the hands of his immediate superiors and the personnel department." which is extremely poor grammar in anyone's book.

I could go through the entire article and find more examples of such grammar, but it would be easier to submit it for copyediting. As someone who hasn't contributed (save some recent copyediting myself) to the article, I'd rather somebody else did that. Better for a major contributor to deal with it, than someone just 'browsing'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy we've got a dialog going. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article passed FA in 2006, when standards for FA articles were far lower, and it is easy to see why.

1. Copyediting and such that the nominator mentioned needs a lot of work.

2. The "History" section is way too long and takes up half the prose.

3. The cherry-picked opinon quotes should be removed (eg "The Russian Ground Forces' performance in the First Chechen War has been assessed as "appallingly bad"; "Furthermore, the human cost of the current situation remains high, with the mistreatment of conscripts being labeled "one of Europe's worst human-rights scandals" by The Economist in 2005", etc, etc). Just write the facts of the war, and in other cases, the facts of the issue, and let readers decide for themselves.

4. A lot of information is outdated and relies on old sources. For an entity that has undergone such rapid change in the past decade (eg military spending increased 6-fold under the Putin administration, compared to when it was in chaos and on life support in the 90's and early 2000's), this article should use at least only year 2006+ sources, especially for the "Personnel", "Crime and corruption in the ground forces", and "Equipment" sections.--Miyokan (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trip you up on a minor point Miyokan, but as SandyGeorgia once said to me you cannot say 'Delist' during a FAR. 'Delist' is only possible after the article has moved to a Featured Article Removal Candidacy/FARC. I believe what you would actually want to say is this article should go to a FARC. When it got to the FARC you would want it delisted. Buckshot06(prof) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive questions, the 'appallingly bad' quote is on the First Chechen War, so if this got through a FARC and was delisted, and I was working on it again, I would still wish to include it. It is the opinion of a respected British expert at the CSRC, Michael Orr, working from Russian newspaper sources, and is a professional assessment of the state of the army at that time. It's a bit like saying the British Army was appallingly bad on 1 July 1916 on the Somme - or that initial US Army counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq were bad. What objection do you have to it?
What is wrong with the length of the history section? The article is roughly ~60kb, and so there's no size worries, simply details on an important topic.
I've previously added 2007 material from a more recent CSRC report by Keir Giles in response to your legit worries over out of date ness. I'll look for further material on the subject. But that does not imply deletion of the other material - at the most, maybe some of it should be moved to Military history of the Russian Federation.
I'll make your above suggested grammar changes Parrot of Doom. Buckshot06(prof) 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also ask for it to be copyedited at the link I provided? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I would list it, but that project seems to have become inactive - it's got a great big banner across the top. Please, if you know where an active copy-editing project is, direct me to it and I'll add it. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Buckshot06(prof) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One image problem Image:Katyusha-chechen-war.jpg lacks a fair use rationale, and doubtful that fair-use is justified given the availability of other images illustrating RGF. DrKiernan (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current formatting of the refs is clearly inconsistent, especially referring to authors by full name, initials and sometimes just surname. Some references are not filled out properly. Secondly, parts of the section on corruption are not referenced and the prose is generally a bit uneven in places. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone kindly explain why the process has now gone to the FARC stage? I believed I'd addressed the POV issue, explaining the reasons why the extracts from the reports were quoted, and as for prose, the copyedit tag has been added - and no specific sections which have difficulties have been identified. Why is this still being considered for FARC? Buckshot06(prof) 17:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do note the introduction to FAR: "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list." Nothing to worry about. If you feel this is keep, say so. Of course we'd need to here from others as well. Marskell (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason at all to delist this article. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, but there's nothing that bad and the content remains FA quality. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in accordance with my comments above. Buckshot06(prof) 10:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as i'm going to help keeping such an important article to FA status by formatting references and fix any style issues I will find. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly still needs work. There are unformatted citations, the layout is cluttered, the lead is not a summary of the article, and yes it does need a copyedit. As it stands, this is still in remove territory. Marskell (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising those issues. Could you please expand upon your concern about the layout? The article has fewer sub-sections or photos than most articles of this size and looks fine on my 24 inch monitor (the monitor's unusually large size normally increases any clutter in articles). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of work needed: it is unclear if the previous Keep declarations have engaged FA standards at WP:WIAFA. To review (samples only, there are issues throughout):
  • WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS#Images issues throughout, pls read those guidelines and alter the layout and image and template placement to conform.
  • WP:MOSBOLD, sample: on professionalisation (see Kontraktniki below) has occurred. (Also provides an example of sending readers to and fro with parenthetical insertions.)
  • WP:DASH, sample: ... will rise to 100,000-150,000 rubles ... and another ... by Sergei Ivanov's Order 428 of October 2005 - and, what
  • WP:MOS#Ellipses, sample: "...Without having to account for their actions ...
  • Citation needed tags, citations lacking throughout, and serious prose issues, start with this sentence: The previous 12th in the Siberian MD, and possibly the 15th(?) in the Far Eastern MD seem to have disbanded. Besides being uncited and weasly, the inserted question mark is something I admit to never having encountered anywhere on Wiki. As another example, most of the section it's in (Structure) is uncited.
  • Strange and inconsistent bolding in the Dispositions section.
  • Completely unformatted and chaotic citations. Two samples only:

The three Keep declarations above are quite surprising; considering that it doesn't appear that WP:WIAFA was engaged, I hope they will be disregarded. The article needs a thorough and independent copyedit, a MoS check, an image review, attention to sourcing, and probably a sources check. I'll ping Ealdgyth. When more of the basics are in place, you might ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check; asking him now would be a bit abusive though, as the article is far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments SandyGeorgia; I got this promoted on its content, and did not pay enormous amounts of attention to exact MOS and other stylistic requirements. Eurocoptre, Nick Dowling, and I are committed to seeing this article stay as a FA, and thus we will be working through the issues you raise one at a time to rectify them (which for me will mean learning a few new guidelines along the way). I would ask other commentators to give us the time required to fix the identified issues, and to kindly help identify any other deficiencies which are present. Currently I'm located right next door to the Advanced Research and Assessment Group at Shrivenham, one of the best places for producing analyses of the Russian armed forces (mostly by analysts who spend their professional time reading Russian-language sources), so while we're working through the stylistic issues, I'd be quite happy to engage on a point-by-point sources check of any sourcing or facts which need double-checking. Buckshot06(prof) 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as work is progressing, Marskell always allows time as needed; I'll check in periodically, and can also help on MoS cleanup as work progresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, could you please assume good faith rather than declare that I didn't consult the FA criteria and that my comment should be ignored? - that's pretty rude behaviour. I did actually look at the FA criteria, and my view is, and remains, that the amount of work this article needs is fairly minor and doesn't justify de-listing. Formatting references is easy and the required MOS edits aren't a big deal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think quite a bit of substantial work is needed (prose and sourcing as well as the easier cleanup), hence my surprise at seeing Keep declarations from seasoned FA participants; at any rate, the work is doable. I'm sorry if I offended you, but because FAR work can proceed at a fairly leisurely pace, it's surprising to see a lot of Keep declarations when an article clearly isn't at FA status. Once again, my apologies for any offense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding sources and the referencing in general.

  • Is it Kier, Giles or Kier Giles? Unclear from the context. Also are the sources by this author books? Periodicals? Is the CSRC the publisher? I see the abbreviation CSRC is finally expanded in ref 41? But it's used long before that.
  • Bare urls in references, they should have titles.
  • Website references that lack publishers and last access date.
  • While I understand the desire to not get involved in the minutiae of the MOS, there are good reasons for some of the rules. It helps imensely in finding your sources if the books or periodical titles are in italics, article titles are in quotation marks, authors are formatted consistently, a consistent format for volume and other information on periodicals is used, etc.
  • Please use link checker tool to check for dead links. I found that the very first footnote I clicked had a dead link.
  • References in non-english languages should give the language they are in, for the convience of the reader.
  • What makes http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9059/RussianArmedForces.html a reliable source?
  • Likewise http://warfare.ru/?
  • Most of the referencing problems are MOS issues, more than quality of sources, it appears. They are not formatted consistently, as there is no over all system to the refs. It appears you were trying to go for a "Short footnotes - longer references" system, but you've got longer entries in the footnotes and some of your shorter footnotes don't exactly conform to the way the references are presented, etc. For this stuff, Sandy would be an excellent resource to straighten out the formatting concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm normally on board to help with just such work, but this article needs so much work that I'm not yet convinced it's the best place to expend my FAR efforts. If it is copyedited and fully cited, I can pitch in to help with MoS and citation cleanup, but it's going to take a sustained effort to bring it close to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Buckshot's request, I've made a first pass through, leaving sample edits only.[2] To save me having to type it all up, please step back through my diffs where I explain each edit. There is much more to do, but this should get you started. I haven't even looked at citations, and there are still copyedit needs. I'll continue to peek in as you work and leave more sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since my last commentary (again), the article has been under review for five weeks, and there have only been 11 edits, very little change to the article since my last query. Please ask Elcobbola and Ealdgyth to revisit if images and sources have been resolved; there is still a copyedit tag, and MoS issues have not been resolved. I will move to a Remove soon if progress has stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, three edits the entire month of October, the article still has multiple tags, and work has stalled. The amount of work needed on this article cannot be accomplished at this pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove There are too many issues at the moment, and not enough people working on them. I just spent an hour working on the references but abandoned out of frustration, because there are so many conflicting styles being used. We cannot have FAs with cleanup tags on them. Although the specific content seems to be good, there are far too many style issues at the moment. Woody (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. This article clearly has issues with regards to the criteria, starting with the lead which doesn't summarize the article. Nothing is happening here and I am taking the removes ahead of the rash of early keeps. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that this article has improved a lot during ths FAR and is very close to a decent FA now. Disconsidering "Keep" votes above isn't quite fair, especially that editors resolved most of the issues posted here. However, i'm opposing the closing of this review and wish to confirm my keep vote. Before stating that "nothing is happening here", have a look at how this article looked like before the review started, and compare it with its current form. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are still many instances of Peacock words, the Equipment section is a case in point. It's also riddled with grammatical errors. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop posting This review has been closed by Marskell, it is awaiting the automatic archiving by Gimme's wonderful bot. Please post any further comments about moving forward to the article talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Russian_Ground_Forces/archive1&oldid=1138477680"