Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Russian Ground Forces

Russian Ground Forces
I've been improving this article quite a bit over the past week and I'd very much like suggestions for what else needs to improve for it eventually to be considered for an A-class review. Buckshot06 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Hmm, some general suggestions: (One minor point: is "Russian Ground Forces" the official translation? I would have thought that "Russian Land Forces" would be closer to the original.) Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead should be a summary of the remainder of the article, not a separate section in its own right.
 * The organization structure (not "order of battle", as there's no conflict being discussed) should be presented as prose, if possible, or, failing that, as a table. Wikification of just about everything would also be in order; almost all of these units are deserving of articles.
 * The equipment section should be trimmed to a few paragraphs of prose. The current list is unacceptably long; this isn't list of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, after all.  As a general rule, a list-heavy article will never pass FAC (and is hence likely to fail an A-Class review as well).
 * I would clean up the footnotes to avoid the Latin; even the CMoS deprecates "op. cit." now. (As a side note, "Name, ibid." would only make sense if multiple authors had been cited in the previous note, and only one was applicable; in the case where the previous note references only a single source, the form is a plain "Ibid.").
 * Some major topics that should get discussed:
 * Budgets and expenditures.
 * Command structure, names of major commanders, etc.
 * Ranks, decorations, etc.
 * Controversies, corruption, etc. (tantalizingly referred to—"These numbers should be treated with caution, however, due to the difficulty for even the General Staff to make accurate assessments."—but never fully discussed).
 * Direct citations for as many points as possible would be a good idea.
 * Finally, once the article has taken shape, extensive copyediting will probably be appropriate.