Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Cold War

Cold War
old peer review:here

I just wandering, what's really keeping this article from FA status?--Macarenses (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D
That's a good question to ask about any detailed article. My comments are:
 * The article is unduly focused on the US and USSR and tends to portray the western and Soviet blocks as single bodies, when it reality there were diverse experiences of the Cold War worldwide and important disagreements among national governments and within nations. For instance, France and the UK sought to further their own geopolitical goals wherever possible and by the 1980s there were considerable divisions within many western democracies about the seeming escalation of the Cold War (which lead to events such as large-scale anti-nuclear movement in Europe and New Zealand effectively breaking off its Alliance with the US)
 * The coverage of the military balance seems rather limited. In particular, relatively little attention is given to how the prospect of nuclear war affected international relations.
 * Stating that the opponent of the Soviet bloc was the 'Western world' is dubious - I fail to see how strongly anti-Communist countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Iran (to name just four) were in any meaningful sense 'western'.✅
 * Stating that China's involvement in the Cold War was to launch "its own independent campaign against the US" is so massively over-simplified as to be outright wrong✅
 * "Soviet relations with the West further deteriorated when, one week prior to the start of World War II, the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - alternatively, signing a de-facto alliance with leading western power which then went on to dominate most of Europe could be seen as greatly improving the USSR's relationship with 'the west'. I think the article means something like the 'western democracies'.✅
 * The discussion of the relationship between the USSR and the US and UK from June 1941 to the end of World War II stresses points of disunity and ignores the fairly extensive cooperation during this period (which actually extended to government propaganda campaigns in the UK and US praising the Soviet Government!). ✅
 * The discussion of the various conferences also presents the Western Allies as a single block, when in reality there were important areas of difference in the negotiations between Roosevelt and Churchill's views.✅
 * "communists attempted to disrupt the elections of 1948 preceding large losses therein" - where were these elections held? This wording is also very formal and unclear.✅
 * "That August, Stalin ordered the detonation of the first Soviet atomic device" - this implies that the Soviet atomic bomb effort was a reaction to the formation of NATO, which is wrong. It's also rather odd to emphasize that "Stalin ordered" the test - the test was essential to prove that the Soviets' bomb design worked. ✅
 * Why is the British Attorney General's views of opponents to the Korean War emphasised? He was hardly an important figure in the war, and his views are presented without the reason for opposition to the war being articulated (which seems rather more important).✅
 * The coverage of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution should discuss the important impact this had on Communist and Communist-aligned political parties in the west; in many cases their membership collapsed never to recover. The shocked public response to the repression also hardened attitudes against the USSR in many countries.✅
 * The coverage of France's withdrawal from NATO is rather brief and simplistic✅
 * File:Cold War Map 1980.svg seems highly dubious - most of the countries identified as being 'Other allies of the USA' weren't formally 'allied' with the US. Including South Africa in this category, for instance, is clearly wrong. Overall the map is hopelessly simplistic and should be removed. ✅
 * The claim that "previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons, but the gap had been narrowed" is highly dubious and cited to something published by a Conservative think-tank (the Heritage Foundation) in 1983. This should probably be removed. ✅
 * "Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up.✅
 * Labeling Iraq a "longtime Soviet ally" is rather dubious given the extent of US and Western European support for Iraq during the 1980s.✅
 * The statement that the US "had 1.5 million troops posted abroad in 117 countries" by 1989 is rather misleading as the only US military presence in a large number (most?) of those countries were small detachments of marines responsible for the security of the US embassy. Almost all these personnel were stationed in Europe, South Korea and Japan. ✅
 * "The Cold War also institutionalized a global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-industrial complexes" - is also questionable, given that most countries had large permanent militaries by the 19th Century at the latest. ✅
 * Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars.
 * The paragraph which begins 'No separate campaign medal has been authorized for the Cold War' is focused on a minor issue in the US and should be removed ✅ Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

 * 1c/2c issues: Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I used a combination of terse wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon. I reviewed source quality and citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Using Transaction Press for internal history of Soviet Union, Transaction is a known poisoned press; Christenson, Ron (1991). Political trials in history: from antiquity to the present. Transaction Publishers. - Replaced Citation, hopes this one is good enough--Macarenses (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * New transaction press source being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Transaction sources should not be used, except for the opinions of their authors, where their opinions are notable due to the application of the author's opinion to their own politics / work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅


 * Using Gorbachev (primary source) for fact.
 * Gorbachev is a primary source when speaking about his own career. He cannot be used for fact as a result.  The fact should be sought in another work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅


 * Probable primary source: Hanhimaki, Jussi; Westad, Odd Arne (2003). And if it isn't a primary, then it is almost certainly an inappropriate use of top-and-tail not highly scholarly sections of a source book.  Usually scholar source book scholarly introductions are good; less so body context which is pedagogically focused framing, rather than scholarly opinion.
 * Hanhimaki and Westad is a source book, a compilation of primary sources. It shouldn't be used to cite fact, as it is a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅


 * Probably tertiary aimed at non scholars: Jacobs, Dale (2002)
 * Tertiary sources (dictionaries, encyclopaedia) shouldn't be used. Jacobs is a tertiary source.  Replace with a reliable secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅


 * Publisher not in the business of scholarly publishing, HQRS failure: Kolb, Richard K. (2004). And it isn't cited✅
 * Inappropriate use of primary: Kennan, George F. ✅
 * Opinion piece used for fact: Muravchik, Joshua (1996).✅
 * Trailing punctuation after some citations in body text
 * Citations should look like this: "had a nice puppy.[40]" They shouldn't look like this "had a nice puppy.[40]." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅


 * Inappropriate tertiary: Smith, Joseph; Davis, Simon (2005).
 * Tertiary sources should be used rarely with care. Smith and Davis is not an appropriate use.  Seek the fact in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) ✅


 * Known undergraduate textbook publisher: Taubman, William (2004). Tucker, Robert C. (1992). (WW Norton) My error Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Undergraduate textbooks (WW Norton is an undergraduate textbook publisher), are tertiary sources. Seek a secondary source for the fact. Fifelfoo

(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense: Norton is top of the line and Taubman won the Pulitzer prize for his biography. Holt is likewise a famous old mainstream publisher and the Walker book is a well-reviewed overview. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that its obviously reliable, in twelve years I have only encountered Norton as a textbook publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How is H. Holt a scholarly press: Walker, Martin (1995). The Cold War: A History. H. Holt. Asked, answered and resolved fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe H. Holt to be an appropriate publisher. If you can demonstrate it publishes academic works, then it is fine.  Normally personally named presses "H. Holt" "F. Fifelfoo" "J. Bloggs" indicate self publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)✅
 * Henry Holt & Co was founded in 1866 and has published thousands of important books. People might want to look at the Wikipedia article before they make bad assumptions. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that and indicating its a HQRS, I've not encountered this publisher previously and its name rang bells due to being a personal name with initial. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Full cite required in bibliography: Åslund, Anders (1990). (needs publisher) ; Gorbechev, Mikhail (1996). (Author misspelt) ; Hennessy, Peter. (incorrect date format) ; Halliday, Fred (2001). (subtitle) ; Shearman, Peter (1995). (publisher misspelt) ; Stone, Norman.  (completely out of style, commentary in citation, no publisher) ;✅
 * I hope the additional comments help with my wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)