Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs)

I understand that the first GA-review of this article came off as rather lax as discussed on the talk page and the editors who worked on this article would very much appreciate a whole new review from a second pair of eyes. In order to help out with this interesting article, I promise to do a thorough review before the end of the month. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of grammar errors and suggestions.

1. Instead of mentioning four the-battle-is-also-known-as make a note which state something like, "The Russo-Georgian War is also known as the Five-Day War, August War, or Russian invasion of Georgia".
I've looked at other notable wars' articles and all of them include the alternate names in the first paragraph. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've addressed this. I'm going to insert a note, de-cluttering the start. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. "that took place in August 2008 in the South Caucasus" - How long the war lasted is a pretty important detail and should not be left out. Add a word or two about how long it lasted.
 Done However, the exact duration of the war is debatable. Russia officially attacked Georgia on 8 August. There is evidence that the Russian Army was in South Ossetia already on 7 August 2008, however they did not engage the Georgians until 8 August. The Georgian Army had already stopped fighting on 11 August 2008, while the ceasefire was reached on 12 August. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages as early as 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. In early August, a number of confrontations took place in South Ossetia" - This is unnecessary long and the two sentences can be connected. Reformulate to something like, "The attacks on Georgian villages by Ossetian separatists in early August caused a number of confrontations".
 Done The first sentence was left that says that since 1 August the Ossetians were shelling the Georgians and the Georgians were returning fire. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge, held by Georgia" - Mention which day this attack took place.
The source does not specify the exact date. The Abkhaz began shelling the Gorge on 9 August and the military operation was officially launched on 12 August. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. "The West condemned Russia" - This sentence is too undetailed. Did the West impose sanctions? Did NATO deploy peacekeeping units? If nothing other than condemnation happened write something like, "The West condemned Russia, but did not intervene".
The source did not specify what other actions were done, so I've removed the sentence. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Russia temporarily occupied the Georgian cities of Poti, Senaki, and Gori. Russian forces raided Georgian military bases" - This is also unnecessary long and the two sentences can be connected. Change the sentence to something like, "Russia temporarily occupied the Georgian cities of Poti, Senaki, and Gori and raided Georgian military bases".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. "Russia mostly completed its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper on 8 October" - I'm pretty sure "proper" should be written as "properly" in this case.
"Georgia proper" is a term that denotes Georgia without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is an established term in English, and mimics similar forms like Croatia proper. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Russian military occupies Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the ceasefire" - Since when? Include that.
 Done Since August 2008. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9.' "During the uprisings in 1919 and 1920 the Ossetians were covertly supported by Soviet Russia. However, the rebels were defeated" - This formulation strikes me as lax. Reformulate to something like, "During the uprisings in 1919 and 1920 the Ossetians were covertly supported by Soviet Russia, but even so, were defeated".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. "The Soviet Georgian government" - "Soviet Georgia government" should be written as "Soviet-Georgian government".
 Done This was changed to "The government of Soviet Georgia". --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. "Some historians believe" - Which historians? Known, respected academic historians? The problem when using wordings like "some believe" is that someone will come along and say {{who}}. I suggest naming a few specific historians or remove the addition altogether.
 Done RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've added another notable historian to the list, Stephen F. Jones. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. "the Georgian Supreme Soviet" - Link Supreme Soviet of Georgia.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. "Emboldened by its success restoring control in Adjara" - It appears the word "in" is missing between "success" and "restoring".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. "Russia (which had previously aimed to preserve the status quo) now felt that the security of the Caucasus depended on the situation in South Ossetia" - Reformulate to something like, "Russia—who had previously aimed to preserve the status quo—now felt that the security of the Caucasus depended on the situation in South Ossetia".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. "This is a region where Russia feels "vulnerable" - This seems to be written from a personal point of view and violates WP:NPOV. Either remove (my suggestion) or reformulate to something like, "this is a region where Russia is considered "vulnerable" or "a region where Russia is believed to be "vulnerable".
The source says so. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've resolved this problem with attribution. RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. "If the South Caucasus is controlled by Russia, it enables Moscow to control the amount of Western influence in the geopolitically crucial Central Asia" - This sentence comes off as an extreme case of guessing and "what if". If the meaning of the sentence in question is the official consensus amount academic historians or the universal opinion of someone or something who is in some way related to this subject, write that or remove it altogether (my suggestion).
This was written by Svante Cornell, who is one of the renowned scholars. Clearly "If" refers to the current situation where Russia wants to control the South Caucasus, however Georgia is hostile towards Russia and Azerbaijan does not pursue pro-Russian policy. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've resolved this problem with attribution. RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. "According to Reuters, before the war Russia supplied two-thirds of South Ossetia's annual budget" - This does not grammarly make sense. Change to, "According to Reuters, Russia supplied two-thirds of South Ossetia's annual budget before the war".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. "Russian President Putin" - Link Vladimir Putin.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. "belonged to the Russian air force" - "Russian air force" should be written as "Russian Air Force".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. "On 20 April, a Russian jet shot down a Georgian reconnaissance drone flying over Abkhazia. Abkhazia claimed that the drone was shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force". On 26 May, the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) investigation concluded that the jet belonged to the Russian air force; it was either a MiG-29 "Fulcrum" or a Su-27 "Flanker" - Firstly, why is relevant? It's not immediately clear why this is important. If it is, mention why. Secondly, the last part of the sentence raises new questions and then suddenly ends! What was Russia's official response? Was there any response? Has to be reformulated.
Such things don't happen every day. Ukrainian planes regularly fly over the territory held by rebels in Donbass, however Russia does not shoot them down. This event is included in every shorthand chronology of the war, like here. Russia then instead blamed the incident on the NATO. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. "In late April 2008" - Completely unnecessary to mention it was in 2008 as it's already unmistakably stated in the title.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. "and planning to "invade" Abkhazia" - It seems the word "were" is missing between "and" and "planning".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. "Georgia condemned the move as an act of aggression" - Reformulate this sentence to "Georgia in return condemned the move as an act of aggression" as there has been stated quite a few conflicts in a relatively short paragraph.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. "The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 5 June, that deplored deployment of Russian forces to Abkhazia. The resolution stated that Russian peacekeepers had lost their neutrality and the peacekeeping format must be revised" - Again, how did this end? What was Russia's response?
I've tried to find out the Russian response, but could not find any. Apparently, Russia chose to ignore the resolution.--UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. "The next day, Georgian president ordered police to prepare an operation to free soldiers" - Either change to "The next day, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili ordered police to prepare an operation to free the soldiers" or "The next day, the Georgian president ordered police to prepare an operation to free the soldiers".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. "The number of killed Ossetians rose to six, and the number of injured became 15" - WP:NUMERAL says you should not switch between writing numbers in words and numbers in the same sentence, so should be change to "The number of killed Ossetians rose to six, and the number of injured became fifteen"
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. "however, Russia's special envoy (who cited a flat tire) did not appear. Neither did the Ossetians appear" - Firstly, no need for the "appear" addition in the last sentence. Secondly, these two sentences can easily be connected.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. "officials said that Russian forces targeted the city's administrative buildings, and Gori University and the city's post office were ablaze after the bombings" - Replace the "and" before "Gori University" with "the".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. "A missile struck Gori Military Hospital, killing Dr. Goga Abramishvili" - Who is "Dr. Goga Abramishvili" and why is his death relevant?
Dr. Goga Abramishvili was a surgeon. I believe the fact that the Russian military targeted the hospital operating under the cover of the Red Cross, is important. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've resolved this. It would be WP:UNDUE to specify the fellows name. I've replaced it with "killing one doctor", which avoids that problem. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. "The next day, Russian forces pushed to about 25 miles (40 km) from Tbilisi; they stopped in Igoeti" - Reformulate to "The next day, Russian forces pushed to about 25 miles (40 km) from Tbilisi and stopped in Igoeti".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. "HRW reported" - Link Human Right Watch.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. "and seized five US Humvees" - "US" should be written as "U.S."
32. "attacks by the Russian air force" - "Russian air force" should be written as "Russian Air Force".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. "demilitarization of the Georgian armed forces" - "Georgian armed forces" should be written as "Georgian Armed Forces".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. "Russian checkpoints remained near Gori. Two Russian observation posts remained near Poti" - These two sentences can also easily be connected to "Russian checkpoints remained near Gori and two Russian observation posts remained near Poti".
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. "11:00 am MSK the posts near Poti were abandoned" - What does "MSK" refer to?
See Moscow Time. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. "In 2014, when tensions between Ukraine and Russia escalated" - Link 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. "According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) all parties seriously violated the law of war, resulting in many civilian casualties. The Georgians used Grad multiple rocket launchers, self-propelled artillery, mortars and howitzers during the attack" - This needs to be better reformulated; using rocket launchers, self-propelled artillery, mortars and howitzers are not a violation of the law of war.
I've removed the sentence. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. There is no need to write the name of the counties in the "Reactions" in italics.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. "US sanctions against Russia" - "US" should be "U.S."
40. "according to the US Navy" - "US Navy" should be "U.S. Navy".
41. The "Responsibility and motives" should be removed entirely. Firstly, It mentions a lot of things which has already been stated in detail in the article. Secondly, a section talking the responsibility of a war is not at all useful in a neutral encyclopedia as it will be reduced to cheap sentences such as, "Both Georgia and Russia accused each other of being the aggressor whose military activities triggered the war". Lastly, motives of the war is already explained in the "Background" section and could also fall under the guessing and "what-if" categories. I'm supportive of a link to Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War in the "See also" section since such an article exist, but I will not pass the article for GA-status with a "Responsibility and motives" section.
 Done However, it contained some useful information, such as the statement by Medvedev that the real aim of Russia was to stop NATO expansion. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. There is no need to write "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" over and over again. Once you have established her name is Condoleezza Rice and that she is US Secretary of State just use the phrase "Rice" when referring to her. This naturally goes for every person mention several times.
 Done --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses a bunch of references, a lot of which contain no author, language, or date information. When citing non-English sources be sure to include a "(in Russian/Georgian/German)" reminder in the reference. Be sure to mention what date the source was retrieved and who published the source.

I believe that all non-English sources are marked as such. Articles published by Reuters and Lenta.ru don't contain the names of the authors. Some sources don't contain the publication date. The sources were gradually added in 2008-2014, so it's virtually impossible to determine when they were accessed for the first time. I've rechecked all of them and added the missing details whenever possible. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has quite a history of content disputes and seems to be still occurring on the talk page. The article itself does not change significantly from day to day though (with exception of those edits made during the first GA-review and in preparation for this GA-review).

The dispute was a long time ago and is irrelevant today. Same thing can happen to GA nomination of Earth, where some POV pushers can appear out of nowhere and begin to discard all the reliable sources and argue that the Earth is flat. --UA Victory (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

RGloucester I believe the terms South Caucasus and North Caucasus that you've replaced with Ciscaucasia and Transcaucasia, were far more widespread and understandable. There is no "Ciscaucasia Military District", since there is only North Caucasus Military District. --UA Victory (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transcaucasia is the standard term in English, and has always been more common. I'll change the district back, as that doesn't seem to be referencing the region, as I know it is called "Ciscaucasia" in Russian as well. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, after the fall of the Soviet Union, South Caucasus and North Caucasus began to supplant the older terms. For example, see South Caucasus Pipeline and those sites: 1, 2 and 3. As your graph shows, the usage of South Caucasus is increasing since 2000. I've googled both South Caucasus and Transcaucasus; the first has more hits than the other. --UA Victory (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may have increased, but it has not surpasses Transcaucasia. There is no such thing as "Transcaucasus". It is "Transcaucasia". RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through searching, it seems that "Transcaucasia" certainly dominates "South Caucasus", but that "Ciscaucasia" has fallen out of use, in favour of "North Caucasus". Thus I've left the article like that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which source uses exactly such naming "Second South Ossetia War"? I've only seen combinations like War (or conflict) in South Ossetia. --UA Victory (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read it in a Russian source. They seem to call it variants on "South Ossetia" or "South Ossetian" War. I've seen it as "second" to disambiguate from the first one. We can allow "South Ossetia War" to stand in, though, if you prefer. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with the more common phrase "2008 South Ossetia War". RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any need for the sources to be crammed in the lede? Other GA articles don't have sources crammed in the lede. --UA Victory (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's only plain text in the lede without any sources. The sources are given only in the body. --UA Victory (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

The article looks much better now. Regarding the issues related to the source problem, references like "Зайцев, Анатолий (in Russian). Lenta.ru." contain no retrieve information. If the source was added a long time ago and you have idea when it was retrieved that's fine, just be sure to add date information about those you know. With that being sad, the article has improved greatly. Once I have received a reply to the date-problem, I'm going to pass it for GA-status. Excellent job people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these Lenta articles don't have publication dates, for some reason. As an example, http://lenta.ru/lib/14164877 only lists today's date, not the date that it was actually written. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War/GA2&oldid=850861573"