Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:43, 7 September 2008 [1].

Cold War edit

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)
previous FAC (02:05, 9 July 2008)


This article has failed an FAC two months ago mainly due to its bad prose and few POV problems. However, major changes have been done since then, and I expect a successfull FAC for this top-importance article rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. I'm ready to deal with any remaining issues this article would face. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator requested withdrawal here. Maralia (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I'm rather surprised to see this FAC, one day after I posted a number of concerns on the discussion page (as part of a copyedit) which have not been commented on or addressed. I have problems regarding style, POV and consistency with the linked articles. Dhatfield (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologise, I didn't notice your issues on talk page. However, they have been adressed and hopefully resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused I feel I can't vote when I am involved in a copyedit. Please take a look at my proposal for the End of the Cold War section on the discussion page - I put it there because some authors dislike edits during review. Dhatfield (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at the proposed "Second Cold War" (1979–85) copyedit. Dhatfield (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is such an important article it has to be held up to the highest standard. I believe it still needs work. Dhatfield (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under review, Dhatfield (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, I'm afraid I cannot support it in it's current form. The primary problem is POV - US POV. This has been raised in past FACs and has not been recified. Facts have been selected to conform the traditional US/Western view of the Cold War, while overlooking embarrassing facts, or those that the authors consider 'unimportant'. A few examples:

  • The US funding of mujhadeen in Afghanistan is not mentioned at all. This is a classic example of Cold War conflict between the superpowers, but it's just ignored. Could that be because it's embarrassing to the US authors?
  • I apologise, it is mentioned in the second paragraph on the war with the sentence "Although Brezhnev was convinced in 1979 that the Soviet war in Afghanistan would be brief, Muslim guerrillas, aided by many countries (especially the US), waged a fierce resistance against the invasion.", sandwiched between Brezhnev, many other coutries, and fierce resistance. No mentioned of Carter and the CIA's involvement, just tucked away rather neatly. Dhatfield (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the US involvement in Iran is swept under the carpet with the statement that it was "mired in controversy", but no details are given. Meantime, the Soviet failure in Afghanistan gets two paragraphs of detailed coverage. That's bias.
  • The coverage of Able Archer 83 in this article factually contradicts that featured article, again relying on the wisdom of Gaddis, instead of seeking a balanced perspective.
  • The importance of the Solidarity (trade union) is downplayed. Are the US authors trying to create the perception that the West won the war all on their own? This has been raised in past FACs, but not addressed.
  • There is very little to no reporting of Soviet views and perspectives on the Cold War. This has also been noted in past reviews, but not corrected.
  • After Chernenko's death, Reagan was asked why he had not negotiated with Soviet leaders. Reagan quipped, "They keep dying on me".[145] This joke was in poor taste when Reagan said it, and demonstrates nothing more than his contempt for the Soviet leaders. Why select this fact over so many others that could be included: it's offensive and irrelevant.
  • This is by no means an exhaustive list of problems with the article. This is the list of problems in one section. Selective reporting of facts constitutes bias.
  • Since my proposed edits to address these factual weaknesses were rejected on (in my opinion) fairly spurious grounds, I can only conclude that the author(s) intend to retain the pro-US bias. Let's not make the mistake of history being written by the victors. Dhatfield (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls within the scope of four Wikiprojects. The other three all rate this article as B-class. To promote to FA would clearly violate consensus. All future FACs should link to the most recent review within all projects. Dhatfield (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The article hasn't covered all of the related issues such as The Azerbaijan Crisis of 1946. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection - How did The Azerbaijan Crisis of 1946 influenece/changed the course of the Cold War, and what makes it so important that would worth mentioning in this article? --Eurocopter (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't an internal wikilink to this Crisis? Must not be notable. Hires an editor (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to the cold war template. This is the interlink. You can also find more in Azerbaijan People's Government and Republic of Mahabad.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if we would mention all the things from the Cold War template we'd probably have the longest article on wiki. That's why we mention only the important events, which effectively influenced/changed the course of the Cold War. Sincerely, the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946 would better fit in the Origins of the Cold War article. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per [2], Fasach Nua (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • Done - only two images remained and were removed now. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All images are PD, and licencing is consitant with criteria 3 of the FA standard Fasach Nua (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Going outside my comfort zone with this one. I'm not a military editor, so keep that in mind if some requests seem strange.

  • World War II and Post-War: Is there a reason that Post-War is capitalized?
  • Winston Churchill is linked twice. Of all people, he doesn't need an extra link.
  • "Containment" through the Korean War: Harry Truman was linked in the last section.
  • A rare photo comment from me: The second paragraph of this section is being sandwiched by pictures on both sides. This needs fixing, while avoiding any further sandwiching elsewhere.
  • "The Berlin Blockade ended peacefully, with Stalin backing down, and allowing the resumption of normal shipments to West Berlin." I'm pretty sure the second comma should be removed.
  • Watch for overlinking of some satellite nations. The linking in general could use an inspection for duplicates/unneeded links.
  • Asia: "In the early 1950s, The US..." Watch the capitalization.
  • Crisis and escalation: I see both defense and defence. Either American or British English should be used, not both.
  • Why is the builiding of the Berlin Wall mentioned twice in this section? The second location is the appropriate location, in my opinion. It fits better there than after the Soviets' 1956 invasion of Hungary.
  • Oust is linked to Nikita Khrushchev. What is the purpose of this? Also, his name is misspelled later in the same paragraph.

Overall, I think it's quite an interesting read. I want to come back for another reading later, but I'm about to run into a heavy workload here. Please forgive me if it takes a few days. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with the exception of the last point (oust links to the section "ouster", within the Nikita Khrushchev article). --Eurocopter (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, factual and fair. What more could we ask for? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cold_War/archive2&oldid=1088823913"