Talk:Disinformation (book)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) 00:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Note: If you see "", it means that criterion is undergoing review. Please address specific action items at the bottom of this review page. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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: (Note: The article uses a non-free image; the image description on file discloses this and qualifies for fair-use as explained therein)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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: (Note: The article uses a non-free image; the image description on file discloses this and qualifies for fair-use as explained therein)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Additional comments, actions items

 * 1(B). Much in the book is Pacepa's testimony. It reads like a narrative and memoir. Please mention this.
 * 2(A). The citation style needs to be consistently followed. For example, please replace bare links, e.g. OCLC 926861117 (this is same as [13]), OCLC 853619212, etc to a consistent style used in the References section.
 * 2(C). The article cites the book directly. In this version of the article, it is cite [13]. This comes across as original research. We can quote the book (primary source) with in-text attributions, but do no more. We must rely on secondary sources such as Hayden Peake's review for any interpretation and analysis of this book. Please revise in one of two ways: (i) remove direct cite to the book and limit to summarizing the analysis and interpretation in secondary sources; or (ii) direct quote whatever you feel is appropriate from the book while respecting the fair use guidelines and when you do so please directly cite the book.
 * 4. Neutral
 * Pacepa-Rychlak's book is one of the five required readings, along with Mosher / Nye / etc. More neutral wording would be "...and one of the required readings in a graduate-level course for Liberty University."
 * In the third para of the Contents Summary section, the article reads "They discuss the role of disinformation with regards to fomenting Islamic terrorism." The Chapter 33 and pages 261-264, 292-293 are not referring to "Islamic terrorism" in general, rather the context is anti-Semitism, Israel and the United States. A neutral wording, given the cited sources would be "international terrorism at Israeli and American targets" by exploiting among other things the historic Muslim anti-Semitic sentiments and leveraging the resources of communist countries in Latin America. Or, something along those lines.
 * The article is currently one sided praise for the book. There has been criticism, such as in a review published by the National Catholic Register. This needs to summarized in the main article and the lead per NPOV guidelines.
 * The Adam Taylor WPost source cited in the article mentions the book. It states "Disinformation" is a broad practice. Quote: "“You would try and recruit a journalist and he would become an agent of influence,” an unnamed former U.S. intelligence officer told Reuters of the practice. “The Russians did it, the Brits do it, the French do it — it's regular intelligence procedure to try and influence a country's policies through the press.” This is the other side, and needs a mention per our NPOV guidelines.

Once these issues are addressed, I will continue the review the article may be renominated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)