Disinformation (book) was a Language and literature 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.
Disinformation (book) is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
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 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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
Not a lot of surprises from my earlier copyedit of Disinformation. A couple notes:
Based on its content, consider renaming the section Background to Authors. Your call.
I changed the caption of the picture of Pacepa, since it was taken in 1975, before his defection.
I rephrased the sentence "Disinformation was included [...] Studies in Intelligence". Hopefully I've got the meaning correct. I also linked to a short article on that journal.
Just after that I shortened the date ranges 2013–2014 → 2013–14 and 2015–2016 → 2015–16. It's alright to use two digits for the second year when describing a regular period of a year or less extending over consecutive calendar years, such as a fiscal year, a sports or television season, or an academic year. But otherwise all digits should be used (per MOS:DATERANGE).
The biggest change I made, at least in terms of appearance, are the blockquotes with the reviews. I was going by the 40-word recommendation of MOS:BQ. I'm not particularly happy with the way it looks. The Woolsey quote is quite long and should probably stay as a blockquote. With the others, it might be better to shorten the quote a bit to what's most relevant and then incorporate them back into the paragraphs. Alternatively, some information from the second-last paragraph could be moved up to space-out the blockquotes more evenly.
If you want to shorten a quote, just use [...] in place of omitted words (see MOS:ELLIPSIS). The full original quote can be preserved with the citation using |quote=
If you have any questions or comments, please post them here. I don't mind changing things back. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: -- hi, this is just to let you know that "Romanian secret police" in Pacepa's case is Securitate, not Siguranța. Pacepa is a former communist, not an officer of the pre-communist royal period, which makes his work all the more interesting. Dahn (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you see "[[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]", it means that criterion is undergoing review. Please address specific action items at the bottom of this review page. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1(B). Much in the book is Pacepa's testimony. It reads like a narrative and memoir. Please mention this.
2(A). The citation style needs to be consistently followed. For example, please replace bare links, e.g. OCLC 926861117 (this is same as [13]), OCLC 853619212, etc to a consistent style used in the References section.
2(C). The article cites the book directly. In this version of the article, it is cite [13]. This comes across as original research. We can quote the book (primary source) with in-text attributions, but do no more. We must rely on secondary sources such as Hayden Peake's review for any interpretation and analysis of this book. Please revise in one of two ways: (i) remove direct cite to the book and limit to summarizing the analysis and interpretation in secondary sources; or (ii) direct quote whatever you feel is appropriate from the book while respecting the fair use guidelines and when you do so please directly cite the book.
4. Neutral
Pacepa-Rychlak's book is one of the five required readings, along with Mosher / Nye / etc. More neutral wording would be "...and one of the required readings in a graduate-level course for Liberty University."
In the third para of the Contents Summary section, the article reads "They discuss the role of disinformation with regards to fomenting Islamic terrorism." The Chapter 33 and pages 261-264, 292-293 are not referring to "Islamic terrorism" in general, rather the context is anti-Semitism, Israel and the United States. A neutral wording, given the cited sources would be "international terrorism at Israeli and American targets" by exploiting among other things the historic Muslim anti-Semitic sentiments and leveraging the resources of communist countries in Latin America. Or, something along those lines.
The article is currently one sided praise for the book. There has been criticism, such as in a review published by the National Catholic Register. This needs to summarized in the main article and the lead per NPOV guidelines.
The Adam Taylor WPost source cited in the article mentions the book. It states "Disinformation" is a broad practice. Quote: "“You would try and recruit a journalist and he would become an agent of influence,” an unnamed former U.S. intelligence officer told Reuters of the practice. “The Russians did it, the Brits do it, the French do it — it's regular intelligence procedure to try and influence a country's policies through the press.” This is the other side, and needs a mention per our NPOV guidelines.
Once these issues are addressed, I will continue the review the article may be renominated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
