Talk:1995 CIA disinformation controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 CIA disinformation controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to review this article for GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • There are multiple WP:SCAREQUOTES and I am unsure that it is really necessary - "feed", "agents", "blue border", "checks & balances", "dangle", etc. I am also troubled by the usage of so much quoted material. I applaud the writers for being so respectful of sources and including references, but there's just so much... I am personally finding it difficult to wade through the text.

   Good job - readability and the flow of the article are much-improved.

   • In the Background section, the word "losses" is repeated 4 times and the usage strikes me as bureaucratic-speak or a euphemism for death - I mean, you know...people were dead, people were dying, people were betrayed to an uncertain future. Per WP:EUPHEMISM please adjust the usage of this term.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Hits all the MoS points, I see no concerns here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The two International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence refs are behind a paywall and should say so. This can be done a few different ways, including using Template:Subscription required and "url-access=subscription" parameter seen on Template:Cite web.

   Above has been fixed.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• @Shearonink: Thank you for drawing my attention to the issue of quotations. I am now working to cut as many quotes as possible. Thanks very much for your time, GAB^gab 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: Thanks for pointing these issues out. I think the reason I used "losses" was because the agents were (I believe) not all executed - for instance, Hitz stated that "In June 1985, [Ames] disclosed the identity of numerous U.S. clandestine agents in the Soviet Union, at least nine of whom were executed." I am open to suggestions, and I'll try to find a more suitable way of phrasing it. I'll also work on the sourcing issue. All the best, GAB^gab 23:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Tagged the sources, I'm going to finish clearing up the last two sections and then figure out a way to better word the "losses" issue. Thanks, GAB^gab 23:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good - the English language is so rich, it's a shame to repeat a word or term if another usage will do as well or better. Thanks for keeping up with my suggestions. Shearonink (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: "Vanished" is more to the point, good job. We can infer what happened to these people, but we don't really know for certain.

Also noticed something about the photo of Specter on my latest read-through. It is dated 2007 but the accompanying text takes place in November 1995 - this is confusing to the timeline.

I also noticed that the year is mentioned only once in the Initial revelation section and not at all in the Congressional and Pentagon investigations section - I think the year should be mentioned at least once in the C&P investigations section and perhaps a second time in the Initial revs section.

When was the Damage assessment report published? Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Good catch on the Specter photo - I can replace that with a photo of Deutch or another policymaker, provided I can find one from the mid-90s... I'll also include the dates and such in the pertinent places. The DAT report was in 1995, as was pretty much everything else. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• This article is a Good Article - congratulations to all the contributing editors. Job well-done. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.