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