Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cold War

Toolbox

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've been working on it quite a lot and hope it meets all FA criteria currently. The article successfully undergone an A-class review in January. However, after the A-class review i've made some major improvements especially in the referencing and supporting materials sectors. The promotion of this important article would be a benefit for Wikipedia and the Military history WikiProject, as it is rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. -- Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some of your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. If you're using a work as a source, it shouldn't be listed in the further reading section, you'd list it in "Sources" or "Bibliography", which is a separate section from further reading. When the websites are formatted better, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Use "p." only for references with a single page, and "pp." for references with page ranges, so your references are uniform.
  • Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES – the web references are missing important information including publisher and accessdate
  • "Further reading" references should be in alphabetical order by last name
  • Pay attention to where references are placed. "use it." [13] One" – remove the extra space before the reference
  • "communists. [4]" – remove extra space
  • There are a few more references that have extra spaces before them. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
  • There is American mixed with British spelling. Ensure you only use one type. "defense" is American; "defence" is British.

Gary King (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Section headers generally shouldn't repeat the title of the article. "Pre-Cold War" -> "Background," "End of the Cold War" -> "End".
  • Also, section headers shouldn't begin with articles, i.e. "The 'Second Cold War'" -> "'Second Cold War'"
  • Link decades in the lead - they provide context.
  • "Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas: military coalitions; ideology, psychology, and espionage; sports; military, industrial, and technological developments, including the space race; costly defence spending; a massive conventional and nuclear arms race; and many proxy wars." - the prose list is.... awkward, at best. Consider rephrasing.
  • You state that there were proxy wars twice in the lead. Avoid redundancy, please.
  • Use en dashes for year ranges.
  • "notably" (in the lead) -> "most notably"? The superlative seems to clarify it to me.
  • "The Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980s following Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan, as well as Gorbachev's launching of reform programs: perestroika and glasnost." - consider rephrasing the last part to get rid of the colon; it interrupts the flow of the text.

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Done, with the exception of the "End of the Cold War" section header, of which I could not find another appropiate name, as renaming it to a simple "End" would be quite dull. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Although the US and the Soviet Union had been allied against Nazi Germany... I think that should be against the "Axis powers". I know the SU was only involved in the war against Japan just before it ended, but I believe it was an important factor in their being able to gain territory and influence in East Asia, leading to things like the Korean War.
  • As per MOS:IMAGES, you should avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.

Otherwise, looks quite good. Oberiko (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Done. Images were relocated where possible (with small exceptions, where layout didn't permit relocation of images). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: The third paragraph of the lead is only a single sentence - it's probably worth expanding to at least three. Also, under "Origin of the term", another source would help ensure verifiability, and you should probably have a footnote directly after the quote, just so it can be attributed properly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)