# Talk:Suwałki Gap

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suwałki Gap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: OliveYouBean (talk · contribs) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

G'day! This looks like a really interesting topic so I'm gonna have a go at reviewing the article. Given the length it could take me a while to go through the whole thing and take notes, but hopefully it won't be too long. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

For now I've just got notes on the first couple of criteria. Nothing I'm saying is like "100% you must change this", so if you disagree with anything I'm saying feel free to tell me why. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't have access to my computer, so I'll try to go from the last point to the first. I still hope to introduce the change shortly, but 2017 wikitext editor works poorly on mobile, while disabling it leaves me with a less comfortable solution to introducing templates/refs
6. Images: I will introduce the last sentence of the image #2 in the text of the lead; I don't think the last sentence of the tripoint caption needs moving because it describes the image itself.
3b. This has to do with the fact that in a military standoff like this one, the number and equipment of the units help determine how serious NATO/Russia are about that choke point. It might be a bit on the long side, but then I try to be as comprehensive as I can reasonably be without being excessively detailed. I looked up A-class and FA-class MILHIST articles for guidance.
One thing that should be done is updating that assessment of man- and firepower, because surely something has changed after 8 months of the war in Ukraine.
2b. I know I made use of several non-English sources; take your time to assess them.
globalsecurity.org had several RSN and MILHIST discussions but I can't make much of them. At least the articles I saw made sense, but I will dig deeper.
Will look for the CEPA paper link.
Will make Guardian references uniform. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
As for point 1, most of that is valid criticism, so I'll implement it. Anything I don't agree with will be mentioned in the edit summaries. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
OliveYouBean, thank you for your thorough review, your points should be addressed. The only thing in 1a I did not change was the special military operation so that people reading the text understand what exactly the pollster was asking. In any case, the only thing that remains to be done is an update to the balance of forces. There hasn't been much news about that, unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, the Russians are secretive about what exactly is happening in their military, but I will try to find the newest reliable information. If not, I will leave that section alone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work! There's still a few of the non-English refs I'm looking at but should be done with that shortly. Once I've finished that, I'm happy to promote this to good article status. :) OliveYouBean (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: my only concern is the use of a source from the Ministry of Defence of Russia to talk about NATO troop placements. It's referenced right at the beginning of the section, and as far as I can tell everything else in the body is referenced somewhere else so I'm not really sure why it's there. Is there information in that section which comes from that source?
Every other source that I could consider as being "biased" though seems to be used in an appropriate way (things attributed to the source rather than being written in Wikipedia's voice). So once you've answered the question about the Ministry of Defence source I'm happy to promote the article! OliveYouBean (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I did initially use it, but now that source seems redundant.
I will double-check if the article is up-to-date before it receives the GA status. I'll ping you when I'm ready. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Okie dokie. Again really good work on this article, it was a pleasure to read and review it. :) OliveYouBean (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
OliveYouBean, I double-checked everything and the article as presented has the most up-to-date information I could find. I think I'm ready, please double check the article for any mistakes or doubts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I've done one last check through, everything seems good to me so I'm going to promote it. :) OliveYouBean (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, so I won't be able to readily reply to the comments, but I hope to address the concerns shortly. Many thanks, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

While I can clearly see the boundaries of western countries including NATO members in blue, it is almost impossible to see the boundaries of CSTO members in yellow. Is it possible to have a different color scheme? 104.175.74.27 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You are free to devise another one. This colour scheme was chosen because NATO's flag is blue and CSTO... well, it's also blue but we already have it, so the next largest colour component was yellow. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge? The gap is (likely) to be this border. 115.73.238.169 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)