Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of the Soviet Union/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Military history of the Soviet Union[edit]

Partial self nomination. Both comprehensive and concise. A former Collaboration of the Week that has benefitted enormously from the knowledgable contributions of many Wikipedians. Was posted on Peer Review without response. Looking forward to your comments. Ryan Anderson 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I still think that structuring may use some more work, but it is quite good as it is. The article has been greatly improved and is close to FA, but needs more work. Primarily I am concerned about sectioning logic. The article seems loosely structured around chronology - from section 1 being Tsarist and revolutionary background to one of the last sections being Collapse of the Soviet Union and the military, but this history brief is interrupted by sections on Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military or Military-industrial complex and the economy which I feel should be described after the History section, which needs to be created and encompass all chronological history. Second, I think some events (wars) need their own sections (or at the very least, a large paragraph), especially the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War and the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan, each of which IIRC led to the reshaping of the Red Army after its defeat. As a minor point, the history section to be complete should at least briefly mention all wars from the timeline (like '39 Invasion of Poland and Bessarabia, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • See the talk page. Why this structure was chosen is discussed there... Chronological articles run the risk of leaving the reader with little understanding of the military as an institution and its relationship to other structures. (For a chronicle, see the timeline.) If the article details, e.g., the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, or the invasion of Afghanistan in depth but fails to convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships, it has wasted the reader's time; it has left him with a meaningless flux of data (trivia) that he can't interpret in an educated manner. (On that note, I've dealt with quite a few students who are military history buffs-- they often known a lot more about all the battles and campaigns than I do, which isn't saying too much--, but when asked, e.g., what did nomenklatura authority have to do with the Soviet military, they're often drawing blanks.) I'm sure that a survey on the structure, ideology, and doctrine seems quite elementary to you, but keep in mind that, unlike yourself, most readers will probably lack an understanding of even these most basic of attributes, and the structure of the article ought to be designed with them in mind. 172 07:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I read the Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union#Problems_with_the_current_outline and this discussion is far from complete. I completly agree with you that the article should convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships - and it does it now. This is a very good article, but dividing it into chronological history first and moving sections about development/structure after this would make this easier to read - I feel that atm it is bit chaotic, to use your student comparison I'd say that the student that wrote it had good grasp of important facts but has problem with logical structuring his essay. As for detailing other wars, I think we have space for this in the article (after restructuring). Few more paragraphs wouldn't hurt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Ryan Anderson. I'm having trouble logging in at school. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I have added coverage of the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the invasions of Poland and Bessarabia. As for the format: I do believe this is chronological, actually... just that the focus is on the ideas rather than the events. The concept is that this is not just a timeline of Soviet military conflicts (which is provided at the bottom of the page), but rather an in-depth analysis of the ideology underlining and determining these conflicts. The subjects you argue should be listed at the bottom are actually the focal point of the article: the "Tsarist....background" section that procedes it allows us to understand how Soviet military policy evolved from its roots in Imperial Russia and the sections that follow illustrate how this policy was applied after its establishment. These sections are the rason d'tre of the article, as they are the only material which is not redunant with other relevant entires, and thus I do believe they should remain where they are. 216.170.63.177 15:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If there is anything important lacking in this article it is well beyond me to say. I guess I would prefer deaper research and greater citing of individual facts, but I always will. - Taxman 18:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. IMO the article lacks an important item: purpose of the Red Army (hint: wider than the trivial one: 'to defend'). In other words, in addition to military doctrine, the political doctrine has to be covered. In particular, see Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union#Red Army and intial expansion of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Great suggestion! I've added a section to Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military which covers the material you suggested. I hope you'll find that further discussion of the evolution of political doctrine is sprinkled into the various entries under Practical deployment... Ryan Anderson 21:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Neatly arranged and well written. Tygar 02:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've put NPOV on the article, and since then I think I've substantially improved it. May need some more work.--Silverback 02:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)