Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Cold War
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently de-listed at GAR and it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and needs quite a bit of work to meet it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist This is months of elbow grease away from A-class. (Full disclosure: I asked Peacemaker67 to start this nom, because I hosed the technical aspect up last time. Tks). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, I'm a delist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist, I have skimmed over this, and these are my initial issues, before even going into a detailed prose review:
 * The lead is far, far too long. (Even by my own standards.)
 * There are too many images, and these often pinch the text.
 * There are (by my count) 20 "citation needed" tags, and 7 "citation not found" tags.
 * Many of the book references don't provide page numbers.
 * There are quite a few basic formatting issues, not least the eighth paragraph of the Third World escalations section.
 * While many paragraphs are long, and have a tendency towards over-detail, there are also some single sentence paragraphs.

Overall, this needs a lot of love and attention to get it up to A-class standard. Harrias talk 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist, per Harrias. And a number of other issues. 16,000 words! Plus footnotes. Gah! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist - Some citation problems, too many images, use of quotes when prose could be employed, inadequate explanation of events in Africa and things like death of Dag Hammarskjöld go without mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist - Where shall I even start? First, those templates about having a too-long lead and the article itself. Second, it looks terribly with its chaotic images are in the wrong places. And as of last like everyone else, this article lacks reliable citations this article doesn't derve to be an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)