Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2018 [1].

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces and later the Russian Air Force that had a 68-year career. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

  • in the lead, suggest "After the war, it moved to an airfield..." and perhaps indicate in what direction and how far Yaroslavl is from Moscow
  • Done.
  • IAP is introduced in the body without explanation, I assume from the lead that it means Fighter Aviation Regiment?
  • Added 2nd explanation, but Dank removed it.
    • What I removed was one of the two instances of "(IAP)"; the same abbreviation shouldn't be defined twice at the beginning and end of two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the World War II section, are there any non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm any of the claims by the 177th?
  • No, unless one can match Luftwaffe loss data to kill locations.
  • I would put the Winter War before WWII when mentioning Talalikhin's victories
  • Done.
  • suggest "three shared victories each" for clarity
  • Done.
  • suggest "The 177th aircraft and crews returned", as only 20 had been detached, not the whole 177th, unless that was the whole regiment
  • Rephrased - it was indeed the entire regiment.
  • Did the regiment not engage in any combat after 1 Oct 1943? Were there no raids on Moscow in that time?
  • No, the Germans apparently lost the ability to make long range raids by that point in the war. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was Fomin's victory confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?
  • Yes, the USAF reported an air-to-air loss on that date and mentions Kwaksan, which is near where the Soviet account mentioned the combat taking place[2].
  • how many of the regiment's claimed victories in December 1950 are confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?
  • Only the F-80 claim on 27 December and F-86 claim on 22 December. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, it appears there is only one source for most claims in Korea, Seidov & Britton 2014. Are there other perhaps non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm these victories?
  • Yes, a relatively small number are confirmed by the USAF. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the 177th IAP flew"
  • Done.
  • a pic of a Sukhoi Su-9 would be good, considering it flew them for 20 years
  • Done.
  • in general, the repetition of PVO after every regiment, division etc is jarring. I appreciate you are mostly redlinking, but I suggest piping to get rid of the PVO. The equivalent is RAF, RAAF or USAAF/USAF and we wouldn't usually append that each time we mentioned a different squadron of the RAF, for example.
  • Piped. Only two units mentioned are not PVO anyway. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article is in great shape. I'd like to see some corroboration of Soviet victory claims from non-Soviet/Russian sources to be completely comfortable that criteria 1c. and d. are met. I've requested a review of Seidov & Britton from Air Power History as I'm unfamiliar with its quality. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • PM, please refer to my comments on the ACR for my interpretation of the Seidov and Britton. If there is any way I can further emphasize that these are only Soviet claims and uncorroborated by the Americans, feel free to suggest it. Kges1901 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • I'm not taking any position on the first paragraph ... it will be fine for some tastes, and not for others.
  • "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 jet fighters, which were swiftly replaced by the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 jet fighter.": Either singular or plural is fine, but don't flip back and forth.
  • Rephrased, also removed repetition of jet fighters.
  • There are more red links than people generally like to see at FAC. It would help if you could write some stubs.
  • Will do.
  • "providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign": That's perfectly good British English, but most Americans need to see a "to" after "from" to get that it means "beginning in", unlike in Commonwealth countries. So, is this AmEng? I see "familiarizing" later on. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I have serious reservations about the book by Seidov and Britton upon which this article draws heavily. My concerns are drawn from a review of the book in Air Power History which I obtained through WP:RX. It is less-than-glowing, to say the least, stating that it is a poor excuse for an military aviation history book, "unbridled acceptance of North Korean, Chinese and Russian victory claims while vilifying and denouncing all American and British documentation of aircraft and aircrew lost as fallacious propaganda", that the authors overstate the number of Sabres shot down by Soviet pilots by a factor of more than 2.5 (650 vs. 224), a lack of source references for the "misinformation" in the book, gross deficits in technical knowledge about US aircraft and Korean geography, and concludes it contains 400 pages of misinformation, has a flawed premise and contains false conclusions. Pretty damning stuff. I don't think it meets our requirements for high quality reliable sources at FA. Happy to share the review, just send me an email. Also pinging Ian Rose who queried this text in the Milhist A-Class review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Can Seidov be used as a source for only the information that the Soviets claimed a certain number of victories (which is what the article uses it for), or should I remove claimed Soviet victory totals? Kges1901 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the review, I actually think that the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used at all in a FA. You could ask for an opinion at WP:RSN if you felt that is too harsh. However, if the consensus among other reviewers was that it could be used with care as a questionable source because it has "a poor reputation for checking the facts", QS are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others (including victory claims in this case). If other reviewers thought it was reliable, IMHO it would have to be explicitly stated in the article that Seidov significantly overstates Soviet victories, and all claims from Seidov would need to be attributed to him in-line thereafter. There is also the issue of the "supercharger", which clearly isn't right and needs to be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've reworded the sections to make it clear that these tallies were only based on the Soviets reports of themselves, and removed the supercharger part as well as any vestigial parts of Seidov's analysis of Soviet pilots' firsthand reports. Kges1901 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I don't think that is enough. I don't think Seidov can be used except for the basic material Ian Rose has mentioned, names of pilots, moves of unit, what engagements they were involved in, but his victory claims are so obviously overstated as to be unusable, as he hasn't even attempted to match them to US/UN losses in many cases. Without US/UN versions for these matters to contrast with, I don't think you can mention victory claims using Seidov on their own, as they are clearly misleading. Even if you do use him, you will need to attribute him in-text with a statement about the inaccuracies in his book, and really, that isn't consistent with sourcing standards for a FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties here, I reviewed at MilHist ACR and was okay with prose after copyediting, I've just tweaked a couple of things after checking changes since I last edited the article. One thing re. the lead:

  • "After completing its formation in July 1941, the 177th spent World War II providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign to the end of the war." -- I saw Dan's point about the initial version of this sentence and agree that the "from" part deserved a "to" clause. My concern now though is that the last part is redundant -- if it spent WWII doing something that implies it did it till the end of the war -- so might be better to just drop everything after "Moscow".
  • Entirely rephrased. I was trying to convey that it did not spend all of the war doing that since it was not operational until weeks into the German-Soviet War.

Re. sourcing, tks PM for getting hold of that review of Seidov and Britton. The issues with the book that I expressed at ACR were based purely on my own reading of various passages so it's useful to know that someone with more professional expertise than I has articulated concerns as well. In response to Kges' query above, I'm now dubious about using the book as the sole source for even ambiguously worded combat accounts. As the Air Power History review suggests, the book is probably all right for sourcing the unit's movements, commanding officers, losses and so on, as well as the pilots' personal experiences, but I think that's about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In his review, which can be found for free here, Dildy did state, however, that Seidov supplies a wealth of detail and data regarding Soviet units, commanders, pilots, and operations.. As a result, can Seidov still be used for at least what patrols they made, and with a stronger rephrasing of the accounts of the claims, perhaps "their pilots reported that they had downed", "reported that they had engaged" etc. "uncorroborated by the USAF." I would rather not remove text if it can be avoided, because Krylov and Tepsurkaev, the only other detailed source, focus on B-29 combat and thus there would be a gap between 10 January and the end of their tour. Kges1901 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's fine. That sort of stuff is unlikely to be influenced by author biases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon, some initial comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be unnecessary space between the intro and the table of contents.
  • Done.
  • You could mention the years in the captions of all the historical photos.
  • Done.
  • WW2 and Russian are duplinked in the intro, and NATO is duplinked in the last section.
  • Model names should be linked in image captions.
  • Done.
  • The caption that says "Three MiG-15s attacking B-29s in 1951" Could specify that the latter were American (isn't self-evident to everyone).
  • Done.
  • " Manchuria (part of China)" Perhaps specify eastern China?
  • Changed to 'northeast china' as eastern China means something different.
  • No insignia to show in the infobox?
  • The unit did not have a unique insignia.
  • "in late 2009, the 177th was disbanded during the reform of the Russian Air Force" Anything on what happened with its materiel and personnel?
  • I have not been able to find anything about it, the Russians would probably not reveal that. Kges1901 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-polished article, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link reconnaissance aircraft, Kaesong
  • Done the recon a/c, but that would be the wrong Kaesong, apparently.
  • For future reference, Zhang, Xiaoming (2002). Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union, and the Air War in Korea. Texas A & M University Military History. 80. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-201-1 might be useful to replace Seidov
  • Zhang actually sources his mentions of the 177th from Seidov's original Russian book.
  • including one bomber, 15 fighter-bombers, and eight fighters Be consistent about spelling out or using digits. Consistency overrides normal MOS rules for spelling out numbers.
  • Done.

Coordinate note - This has been open for two months and I don't feel there is sufficient consensus for promotion, especially considering the issues stated with Seidov and Britton. This issue should be solved outside of FAC and consensus reached on the appropriate usage of the source. --Laser brain (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/177th_Fighter_Aviation_Regiment_PVO/archive1&oldid=863142687"