- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
- Result: Delist: GA sweeps review identified actionable concerns which have been listed on the article talk page and GAR for over a month without apparent remedy. GAR was opened to obtain additional feedback. Three comments at GAR and one on the talk page have agreed with the concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm bringing this article here as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force Sweeps. Having reviewed the article I am unsure if it merits GA status due to the following issues.
- The lead should be tidied and reorganised so that it provides a better and clearer presentation of the article's subject.
- More sourcing is needed, there should be at least one source per paragraphs plus sources on statistics and quotes.
- Some web sources are raw URLs. These should be converted as per WP:CITE to include last access dates and publication information.
- Some book sources lack page numbers. These are required, so that the book matches the information presented.
There may also be others that I missed. I have no prejudice either way, I'm interested in a wider community consenus. My major problem is the degree of sourcing. I would also appreciate a wider view on whether this huge and potential contoversial topic is adequately covered by the article. --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, the lead is weak, and the references should be formatted consistently. There doesn't need to be one inline citation per paragraph: inline citations should be provided where they are needed per WP:WIAGA, not as a matter of routine. One example is "Although this sometimes resulted in inefficient command, the Party leadership considered political control over the military necessary, as the Army relied more and more on experienced officers from the pre-revolutionary Tsarist period." This appears to be uncited, despite the fact it states opinion which could be challenged. Geometry guy 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The introduction needs some work, and the "End Of The Soviet Union" section as well needs a little tidying up.--English836 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair bit of work is needed, as noted above, on lead and references and other things. Since nobody has taken any action here (from what I can see), would anyone object to a close? If so, I suggest a delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]