Talk:Dezinformatsia (book)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing the article and will provide feedback in the next couple of days. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (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.	The prose is generally clear, but readability of the "Background" section is somewhat impacted by the over-citing for material that's unlikely to challenged, such as here: "Roy Godson graduated with a PhD from Colombia University, with a focus on international politics and national security.[10][11][12] Godson is a Georgetown University emeritus professor of government.[13][14][15]" This material is not controversial, so I suggest picking one citation for these and other statements in this section. "Specific goals exported by covert Soviet government channels and groups in the Western world financed by Soviet intelligence operations, were coordinated so as to have maximum impact related to ongoing major international incidents" -- this appears to be a run-on sentence and is hard to understand. Can it be split in two, for readability? "Shultz and Godson note that after the Soviet term disinformation became widely known in the 1980s..." -- The structure is a bit unclear. Was the term "disinformation", "Dezinformatsia", etc? Suggest streamlining the lead to make it more concise. For example, the readers probably do not need to know the exact qualifications of the authors. "The book was co-authored by The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University international politics professor and director of the International Security Studies Program (ISSP), Richard H. Shultz, and Georgetown University professor emeritus of government Roy Godson." Can be shortened to: The book was co-authored by Richard H. Shultz, professor of international politics professor at Tufts University, and Roy Godson, professor emeritus of government at Georgetown University. We can see that they are quite qualified to write such a book, without linking to the departments they worked at. The details are well covered in the Background section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, but suggest removing "It was also reviewed in ..." from the lead, as this has the appearance of original research.
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.	No issues.
	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).	No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I generally don't see the use of the book itself for citations as appropriate, i.e. "Shultz and Godson 1984, p. 41". Suggest these be removed, as they have an appearance of original research. Reviews generally include a brief summary of the contents, so this section should be cited to secondary sources, such as Sloan, which is already used in the bibliography. Could you double check? There are still citations to the book in the "Content summary" section. The article should not include your own summary of the book; this content should come from 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article includes mentions of additional reviews, which could be used in the article to expand the "Reception" section. I felt it was a bit thin, especially compared to the extensive "Contents summary" section. Whatever ends up not being used can be listed under "Further reading" instead of being refs. Suggest removing "The book was reviewed in academic journals including: Comparative Strategy,[33] Political Communication,[34] Studies in Comparative Communism,[35] Telematics and Informatics,[36] International Affairs,[3] The Russian Review,[37] Library Journal,[4] Society,[5] and Journalism Quarterly.[38]" entirely (by converting to actual refs that are used as citations and / or placing into Further reading).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues.
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.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	For the second image, suggest indicating the provenance of the image, i.e. it comes from a Wiki conference, not from the book.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent improvements to the article, thank you.

Notes -- first pass complete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:Thank you for your helpful suggestions, I agree with your recommendations and so I've implemented them directly, and noted this with edit summaries of "per GA Review". These are the changes I made in response to your feedback:

1. Removed citations from Background section.
2. Removed notes so as to have one citation per fact in Background section.
3. Split sentence in two - "Specific goals exported by covert Soviet government channels and groups in the Western world financed by Soviet intelligence operations, were coordinated so as to have maximum impact related to ongoing major international incidents".
4. Clarified sentence - "Shultz and Godson note that after the Soviet term disinformation became widely known in the 1980s...".
5. Streamlined the lede to make it more concise.
6. Changed intro to your suggestion - The book was co-authored by Richard H. Shultz, professor of international politics professor at Tufts University, and Roy Godson, professor emeritus of government at Georgetown University.
7. Removed, "It was also reviewed in ...", from the lede.
8. Removed "Shultz and Godson 1984, p. 41", as citations.
9. Removed "The book was reviewed in academic journals including..."
10. Moved additional book reviews into Further reading section.
11. For the 2nd image, added note indicating the provenance of the image, i.e. it comes from a Wiki conference, not from the book.

@K.e.coffman:Perhaps now you can have another look and re-evaluate? Sagecandor (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far. I've updated above & added a couple of comments. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:I've removed all primary source cites from the "Contents summary" section. Can you update again please? Sagecandor (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:I've expanded the Reception section more. Can you update and let me know your thoughts? Sagecandor (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:I greatly expanded the Reception section, and added bits to the lede from that, with two more reviews. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great improvements! I will be passing the article shortly. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)