Talk:1995 CIA disinformation controversy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am going to review this article for GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * There are multiple WP:SCAREQUOTES and I am unsure that it is really necessary - "feed", "agents", "blue border", "checks & balances", "dangle", etc. I am also troubled by the usage of so much quoted material.  I applaud the writers for being so respectful of sources and including references, but there's just so much... I am personally finding it difficult to wade through the text.
 * Good job - readability and the flow of the article are much-improved.
 * In the Background section, the word "losses" is repeated 4 times and the usage strikes me as bureaucratic-speak or a euphemism for death - I mean, you know...people were dead, people were dying, people were betrayed to an uncertain future. Per WP:EUPHEMISM please adjust the usage of this term.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Hits all the MoS points, I see no concerns here.
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The two International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence refs are behind a paywall and should say so. This can be done a few different ways, including using Template:Subscription required and "url-access=subscription" parameter seen on Template:Cite web.
 * Above has been fixed.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you for drawing my attention to the issue of quotations. I am now working to cut as many quotes as possible. Thanks very much for your time, GABgab 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing these issues out. I think the reason I used "losses" was because the agents were (I believe) not all executed - for instance, Hitz stated that "In June 1985, [Ames] disclosed the identity of numerous U.S. clandestine agents in the Soviet Union, at least nine of whom were executed." I am open to suggestions, and I'll try to find a more suitable way of phrasing it. I'll also work on the sourcing issue. All the best, GABgab 23:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged the sources, I'm going to finish clearing up the last two sections and then figure out a way to better word the "losses" issue. Thanks, GABgab 23:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - the English language is so rich, it's a shame to repeat a word or term if another usage will do as well or better. Thanks for keeping up with my suggestions. Shearonink (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Vanished" is more to the point, good job. We can infer what happened to these people, but we don't really know for certain.
 * Also noticed something about the photo of Specter on my latest read-through. It is dated 2007 but the accompanying text takes place in November 1995 - this is confusing to the timeline.
 * I also noticed that the year is mentioned only once in the Initial revelation section and not at all in the Congressional and Pentagon investigations section - I think the year should be mentioned at least once in the C&P investigations section and perhaps a second time in the Initial revs section.
 * When was the Damage assessment report published? Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the Specter photo - I can replace that with a photo of Deutch or another policymaker, provided I can find one from the mid-90s... I'll also include the dates and such in the pertinent places. The DAT report was in 1995, as was pretty much everything else. Thanks, GABgab 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is a Good Article - congratulations to all the contributing editors. Job well-done. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)