![]() | Suwałki Gap has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 18, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suwałki Gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from Suwałki Gap appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: OliveYouBean ( talk · contribs) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
G'day! This looks like a really interesting topic so I'm gonna have a go at reviewing the article. Given the length it could take me a while to go through the whole thing and take notes, but hopefully it won't be too long.
OliveYouBean (
talk)
05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead: All good :) Background: All good :)
Civilian interest: All good :)
Military considerations: All good :)
This section (particularly when listing current units in the area) does get a little bit technical. The wikilinks help enough that I don't think it needs any changes, but that's something to watch in future since it will probably need to be updated at some point. In fiction: All good :) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
MOS:LEAD: All good :)
MOS:LAYOUT: All good :)
Not sure if this really applies here since only one short section deals with fiction, but nonetheless there's nothing wrong with that section :) All good :) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All good :) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I'm having a bit of difficulty with this because a lot of the sources are in non-English languages, so it may take a while for me to finish this part of the review. Just some notes on the English sources though:
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As far as I can tell, this is all good :) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All good. :) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I'm satisfied that the article is neutral. The text does a good job of staying focused on the objective facts and attributing anything outside of that to its source so that it's not speaking in Wikipedia's voice. I noticed there was a conversation a few months back on the talk page about the article's neutrality, but I disagree with the IP editors there. If the reliable sources (from both Russian and NATO perspectives) are exclusively focused on military strategy in the event of a Russian attack, then that's all the article can focus on. Within that, the article does a good job of presenting the various viewpoints that exist from both sides. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All good :) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very good choice for the first image, and all the images are relevant to the article. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
For now I've just got notes on the first couple of criteria. Nothing I'm saying is like "100% you must change this", so if you disagree with anything I'm saying feel free to tell me why. OliveYouBean ( talk) 10:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Szmenderowiecki: my only concern is the use of a source from the Ministry of Defence of Russia to talk about NATO troop placements. It's referenced right at the beginning of the section, and as far as I can tell everything else in the body is referenced somewhere else so I'm not really sure why it's there. Is there information in that section which comes from that source?
Every other source that I could consider as being "biased" though seems to be used in an appropriate way (things attributed to the source rather than being written in Wikipedia's voice). So once you've answered the question about the Ministry of Defence source I'm happy to promote the article! OliveYouBean ( talk) 08:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Szmenderowiecki ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC).
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I'm on mobile, so I won't be able to readily reply to the comments, but I hope to address the concerns shortly. Many thanks, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
While I can clearly see the boundaries of western countries including NATO members in blue, it is almost impossible to see the boundaries of CSTO members in yellow. Is it possible to have a different color scheme? 104.175.74.27 ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Suwałki Gap has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 18, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suwałki Gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from Suwałki Gap appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: OliveYouBean ( talk · contribs) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
G'day! This looks like a really interesting topic so I'm gonna have a go at reviewing the article. Given the length it could take me a while to go through the whole thing and take notes, but hopefully it won't be too long.
OliveYouBean (
talk)
05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead: All good :) Background: All good :)
Civilian interest: All good :)
Military considerations: All good :)
This section (particularly when listing current units in the area) does get a little bit technical. The wikilinks help enough that I don't think it needs any changes, but that's something to watch in future since it will probably need to be updated at some point. In fiction: All good :) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
MOS:LEAD: All good :)
MOS:LAYOUT: All good :)
Not sure if this really applies here since only one short section deals with fiction, but nonetheless there's nothing wrong with that section :) All good :) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All good :) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I'm having a bit of difficulty with this because a lot of the sources are in non-English languages, so it may take a while for me to finish this part of the review. Just some notes on the English sources though:
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As far as I can tell, this is all good :) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All good. :) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I'm satisfied that the article is neutral. The text does a good job of staying focused on the objective facts and attributing anything outside of that to its source so that it's not speaking in Wikipedia's voice. I noticed there was a conversation a few months back on the talk page about the article's neutrality, but I disagree with the IP editors there. If the reliable sources (from both Russian and NATO perspectives) are exclusively focused on military strategy in the event of a Russian attack, then that's all the article can focus on. Within that, the article does a good job of presenting the various viewpoints that exist from both sides. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All good :) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very good choice for the first image, and all the images are relevant to the article. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
For now I've just got notes on the first couple of criteria. Nothing I'm saying is like "100% you must change this", so if you disagree with anything I'm saying feel free to tell me why. OliveYouBean ( talk) 10:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Szmenderowiecki: my only concern is the use of a source from the Ministry of Defence of Russia to talk about NATO troop placements. It's referenced right at the beginning of the section, and as far as I can tell everything else in the body is referenced somewhere else so I'm not really sure why it's there. Is there information in that section which comes from that source?
Every other source that I could consider as being "biased" though seems to be used in an appropriate way (things attributed to the source rather than being written in Wikipedia's voice). So once you've answered the question about the Ministry of Defence source I'm happy to promote the article! OliveYouBean ( talk) 08:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Szmenderowiecki ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC).
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I'm on mobile, so I won't be able to readily reply to the comments, but I hope to address the concerns shortly. Many thanks, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
While I can clearly see the boundaries of western countries including NATO members in blue, it is almost impossible to see the boundaries of CSTO members in yellow. Is it possible to have a different color scheme? 104.175.74.27 ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)