Talk:Vladivostok Summit Meeting on Arms Control

Vladivostok Summit Meeting on Arms Control was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 6, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the 1974 Vladivostok Summit with the Soviet Union, the U.S. delegation took its breaks outside in sub-zero temperatures due to fear of being bugged?

Gerald Ford (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gerald Ford, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Gerald FordWikipedia:WikiProject Gerald FordTemplate:WikiProject Gerald FordGerald Ford articles

Travel and Tourism

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Video

There is some video footage of this that we can link to:

Smallman12q (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've added the links to the external links section. Michael Barera (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Res Photo

There is a higher res photo of the delegations on the tarmac at http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/ford/photo-gallery/ford-wh-years.html .Smallman12q (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've actually done some digging and uploaded higher-res photos of all the Ford Library and Museum-provided images from the originals at www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov. Michael Barera (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have gone ahead and assessed this article as B-class - it easily passes the criteria, to my best judgement. In fact, this article seems a good candidate for GA review. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vladivostok Summit Meeting on Arms Control/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in this topic and will be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

The prose of the article is excellent, the discussion appears to cover the main aspects of the topic, and the photographs are apropos and lovely. I saw at WikiProject Ford that you're Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Gerald Ford Library--I wish we had more Wikipedians with that kind of access, and I hope this will be the first of many GA nominations from you!

Right now, the biggest issue for the article in terms of the GA criteria is the lack of secondary-source discussion of the summit, which raises concerns for criteria 2b (reliable sources) and 2c (original research). Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources", and "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Here, virtually all the information appears to be gathered from the memoirs of Ford, Kissinger, Gromyko, and Dobrynin. This raises minor verifiability issues (it's better to have a historian publishing through a press known for fact-checking to sort through all their stories for us), but more importantly it means that no scholarly perspective on the talks is presented. I'd suggest bringing in major biographies of Ford or Kissinger, or major scholarly works on arms control history, and reworking the article to rely primarily on these; the secondary (or tertiary) sources should guide the structure, while the primary sources fill in only occasional details. (This isn't to say that you need to cite twenty books to make this article complete; just drawing on 3-4 major sources could be enough for GA purposes.)

Smaller issues:

The lead should try to touch on all sections of the article per WP:LEAD (right now, the aftermath isn't covered).
If possible, it would be better to note page numbers for quotations individually; giving a 10-15 page range would make these difficult to verify. It's probably just within GA requirements, though.
There may be a few too many images per WP:LAYOUT, unless the article is expanded to better absorb them. The four I'd pick to remove would be File:Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev greets President Ford - NARA - 7157128.jpg, File:A late night meeting of the Vladivostok Summit, 1974 - NARA - 7161605.jpg, File:President_Ford_tours_Vladivostok,_1974_-_NARA_-_7161934.jpg, and File:Photograph_of_the_Four_Presidents_(Reagan,_Carter,_Ford,_Nixon)_toasting_in_the_Blue_Room_prior_to_leaving_for_Egypt..._-_NARA_-_198522.jpg, but that's just a personal call. You may be able to get away with leaving them all.
The aside about Ford learning the score of the football game seems a bit trivial. (a criterion 3b issue)
Dobrynin should be clearly identified on his first mention in the article
Not a GA criterion, but no need to link common terms (tiger, Japan, etc.)
The aftermath section seems to particularly need expansion--what were the views of later historians on the legacy of this summit?

Because the big point above, primary v. secondary sourcing, is presumably going to require some significant work to fix, I'm going to close this review for now. I hope you'll rework and renominate this one soon, however--I enjoyed reading it quite a bit, and it's already close to GA in many aspects. Thanks again for all your work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I wrote the article entirely with sources available at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library while I was a Wikipedian in Residence there, and they essentially have just primary sources in their collections. Because of this, I don't have easy access to the necessary secondary sources for a re-write (and I didn't realize that it would require essentially an entire re-write for GA status), so I don't think that now is the time for me to completely re-write the article. It might also be useful to find someone else who isn't as attached to the layout and structure of the article as I am to cut it up and make it better. Thanks for the review and the insights. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]