- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list[reply]
- Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)
177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For my first nomination of 2018, I am nominating an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces that saw service in World War II and the Korean War over its 68-year career. I believe this meets the A-class criteria, and am hoping to eventually get it to FA. Kges1901 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: G'day, nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- in the infobox: "Fighter Aviation regiment" --> "Fighter aviation regiment"
- in the lead, "spent World War II providing air defense for Moscow in the early stage of the Eastern Front" --> "spent World War II" implies the whole war, but "early stage of the Eastern Front" implies only part. Suggest clarify this and rewording
- in the first paragraph of the World War II section, suggest providing just a little more context, i.e. mention the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the advance towards Moscow
- "Moscow-Warsaw road": should have an endash, rather than a hyphen
- "pilots were seen as combat ready" --> "pilots were assessed as combat ready"?
- "22 in combat and eleven non-combat" --> "22 in combat and 11 non-combat"
- "Turning its aircraft over to the replacement...": suggest that this should be a new paragraph
- "Turning its aircraft over to the replacemen...": suggest adding a topic sentence here along the lines of: "On X, the regiment's combat tour came to an end. Turning its..."
- in the Cold War after return from China section, suggest clarifying what the regiment's mission was while based at Lodeynoye Pole. I assume it was air defence against NATO aircraft?
- in the Cold War section, suggest mentioning that the regiment was retained within the Russian military after the collapse of the Soviet Union
- the lead mentions the "Soviet Air Defense Forces" and "Russian Air Defence Forces", but this does not appear in the body of the article
- mixture of spelling "defence" and "defense"
- Standardized what I could to American English. I can't do anything about the categories, though. Kges1901 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Bibliography, move the link for Oxford to first mention; also suppress "United Kingdom", as you haven't used it for any of the other mentions
- "File:MiG-15s curving to attack B-29s over Korea c1951.jpg": source links are dead
- "File:Usaf-korea-map.jpg": source link is dead
- Added archive links for the second one and fixed dead link for the first. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ian -- with the caveat that I can't claim expertise re. Soviet/Russian units; I edit a lot of air force unit histories, but pretty well all RAAF...
- Prose-wise, it reads quite well -- pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit.
- Structure is straightforward/logical, and I think the depth of coverage is reasonable -- the level of detail tapers off after the Korean War but that's not unusual for unit histories during periods when there's no combat.
- Image licensing looks okay to me.
- No obvious reference formatting issues; reliability-wise, I am a bit dubious about Seidov & Britton, having previously looked through the book in relation to the RAAF in the Korean War -- I think I'd prefer to see any details of combat that they record replaced or at least corroborated by the Osprey books.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. As for Seidov and Britton, I realize that Seidov is nationalistic and attempts to increase the amount of Soviet kill claims by including aircraft written off after landings as victories, but I only phrased victories as certain when Seidov wrote that they were specifically acknowledged in American records. Kges1901 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks, you know the sort of thing I'm talking about then... ;-) Yes, I wasn't worried about the places where Seidov's combat reports are corroborated by other sources but it looks to me that footnotes 20–24 inclusive rely solely on his book... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to phrase this in away so that it doesn't state what Seidov presumably quoted from Soviet documents as fact. Most of this is not covered in the Osprey book, though Krylov and Tepsurkaev state that the B-29 was intercepted. This differs from Seidov in that he states it was an RB-29 and that the Soviets claimed to have downed it. Krylov and Tepsurkaev agree that this was the only UN aircraft encountered in early January. Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Tks PM, and AR for a second reminder -- thought I'd left a comment between the two pings but obviously didn't complete it... I'm still concerned about the statements that rely solely on Seidov. I can see that the sentences cited to FNs 20, 21 and 23 are fairly equivocal but those cited to FNs 22 and 24 contain some definite statements about downings rather than mere claims. On a different matter, we say "around 226" somewhere, which looks odd -- how can we be "around" an exact figure? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ian Rose: I rephrased the sentences around FN 24 to "claimed to have downed" so that it is clear that it is a Soviet claim. I cross checked what Seidov claimed in his book with KORWALD and found that the only Jacobs' loss was attributed to a wingtip tank coming loose. As a result, I changed it to a more general Soviets 'credited' with the victories. As for the two F-80 losses on January 20, the names of the pilots are listed in KORWALD as lost on 20 February. I have modified FN 22 to stick to the accounts of Soviet pilots quoted; it seems Seidov was engaging in some modification of claims. Kges1901 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for your efforts to deal with my concerns -- checking the source myself I think that in the previous version you probably weren't too far off what I'd consider a reasonably conservative reporting of the accounts given in Seidov, pls see what you think of my tweaks. Re. my other outstanding point though, "about 226" sounds just as curious to me as "around 226" -- I couldn't view the source page(s) so I still don't know why we're calling an exact figure an approximate one... Once that's resolved, I don't think I can offer unqualified support, but I wouldn't have an objection to promotion if no-one else does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote about because Seidov wrote half of 452 sorties flown by the division, but now I realize that that is implied to be an exact figure. Kges1901 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, now I get it -- it did seem that perhaps you were extrapolating from another figure. In that case I think perhaps we should just say "half of the 452 sorties flown by the division", because my gut instinct (and perhaps yours) suggests that it's unlikely it was exactly half the number and therefore it's best to report it the same way the source does... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Tks for that, happy with the prose now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi[edit]
- "Lenskii, A.G.; Tsybin, M.M." missing publisher. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]
I was the GAN reviewer, so I'm not sure much I can catch on this go-around.
- No DABs, external links OK.
- Add the Russian name and abbreviation for the Air Defense Forces in the lede.
- The F-86 was not designed as an interceptor, but rather an ordinary fighter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support / Chestford[edit]
A very well-written and informative article. None of the other articles classed under Fighter regiments of the Soviet Air Defence Forces have even received a GA, which makes this doubly interesting and useful. It's too bad that 60 year's of the regiment's history - spanning 1951 to 2009 - is covered in six sentences, however, since its last operational combat deployment was in '51 that's probably not surprising and this seems to represent the entirety of published information about it on the basis of which I feel like this is an accurate and holistic, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Having recently passed GA, all the functional issues look just fine. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.