Wikipedia:Peer review/Russian military deception/archive1

Russian military deception


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article to be thorough and well-sourced on a significant and coherent topic, but it appears to arouse passions among some readers. Since it was reviewed in 2015 I have revised it for tone and selected a more neutral title than the one popular in the West. Encouragingly, the text has barely changed since May 2016. I would be interested to know what other editors now think of it, with a view to taking it to GAN when ready.

Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, Chiswick Chap, nice work with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations (I mainly looked at the citations):AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Glantz 2006" appears in the citations, but there doesn't appear to be a corresponding entry in the Sources section
 * Fixed.


 * "Glantz, p. 3" --> which year?
 * Fixed.


 * "stated that "Surprise has a stunning effect on the...": you can probably silently decapitalise "Surprise" here
 * Done.


 * same as above here: "claimed early in November that "The Russians no..." (for "The")
 * Done.


 * "Khitrost' means a commander's...": is the extra apostrophe needed here?
 * Removed.


 * same as above for: "vnezapnost', so the two are naturally..."
 * Removed.


 * there are a few short citations that don't link properly to long citations (for example, "Alʹbat︠s︡ & Fitzpatrick 1994"). This script can help highlight these for you: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js (if you install it in your monobook, such as I have here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js)
 * Thanks, and fixed.


 * there is some mixture of US and British English variation. For example: "armor" and "armour"
 * Fixed.


 * there are some overlinked terms: David Glantz and Ivan Konev
 * Removed.


 * Citations 72 to 80 should have accessdates added to them
 * Done.


 * "The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote that...": it should possibly be attributed in text that this is being cited by Glantz?
 * Done.


 * Also, the above quote seems to end in a quote mark, but not begin with one
 * Removed.


 * Good luck with taking the article further
 * Many thanks, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from S Khemadhammo
Great article! I didn't know that the Russians studied Sun Tsu as well. Although I have little knowledge about the subject, I think I can give a few humble comments on the subject, from an outsider's perspective:
 * "surprise was achieved despite very large concentrations of force, both in attack and in defence." This sentence took me a moment to understand. Though the meaning is clear, its structure feels a little unusual. Perhaps using more verbs and less nouns will solve it.
 * Can't think of a clearer and more compact phrasing: maybe one will come to me.


 * "Civilians within 25 kilometres of the front were evacuated..." No spacing between reference and sentence.
 * Done.


 * some numbers such as 20 can be written as words instead per WP:MOS.
 * Have tried to use words for small numbers and digits for large ones.


 * The concluding sentence "Regular Russian troops were...implausible." has too many references and some should be deleted or merged per WP:CITEKILL.
 * Done.


 * If at all possible, considering the nature of the subject, one could consider adding more from a Russian perspective, therefore increasing neutrality, though the nature of the subject makes this rather difficult.
 * Indeed. However, the Moscow Times is in there.

I hope this helps.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, just entering GAN but will try to action your suggestions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck with it! Meanwhile, may I ask you to take a look at an article i just submitted for peer review? It's here. Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you. I'll see if I can say anything on your article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)