Talk:Raids on the Tendra Spit

Photos for the article

This article needs non-copyrighted photos. Any help finding some would be very much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Review of article

Salfanto, I have reviewed and copy-edited the article commencing with this edit. At each point, I have provided edit summaries to explain the edits and why, in many cases, there is directly relevant WP:P&G. Overall though, and article is written in summary style. The net result of my review was this edit. Save the lead sentences, you have restored the article in full (here) and made a minor edit (here, that combines an orphaned sentence into another paragraph. You have provided no edit summaries. You have reinstated material from questionable sources (sources which are reasonably considered to be a WP:RS). You have also reinstated information that has failed verification, is not supported by a source or may well fall to WP:SYNTH. The reinstatement also degrades the referencing by reinstating many duplicate references. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

So a "clean up" is required for that page? Salfanto (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Salfanto, and that was what was done. But you reverted it. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Question, how come the revert removed so much of the article's content? Salfanto (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The review of the article was done in multiple steps with edit summaries explaining each step. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why the infobox and aftermath section were removed Salfanto (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the summaries, they will tell you why. The infobox told us that the five Ukrainian boats were opposed by two entire Russian fleets and that the Russians opposing these boats were commanded by no less than two admirals. Of the original five boats, no less than eight were captured or destroyed. It would claim that the Ukrainians were commanded by a colonel but the sources would tell us that he only made a press release after the fact in praise of those that lost their lives - not that he had anything to do with commanding the raid. When one gets rid of all the synth and other cruft, there is nothing left that would warrant an infobox. As for the aftermath, we have two essentially duplicate quotes that that were removed per MOS:QUOTE because they are not an encyclopedic use of quotes. WP is not an obituary nor a propaganda instrument. We also have a quote from a politically ambitious dismissed former-general: We can live without the filibustering of a dismissed Ukrainian general per WP:VNOT. Also, [w]e can live without the claims of a milblogger per WP:VNOT - even if their claim was reported in the Kyiv Post. At this point I considered there was not enough meat in the article to support dividing it into battle and aftermath sections, with the edit summary merge sections - no enough meat here. Once you get rid of the journalistic padding, the propaganda, the synth, material attributed to questionable sources, material that outright fails verification and separate reporting of sources that can be singularly summarised, the article as it now stands is what you are left with. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, since it was a military engagement it should have an infobox. Salfanto (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not mandatory for any article - military or otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's inclusion could help the article Salfanto (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Its inclusion is not at all helpful. As I have stated, it is full of dubious and false or misleading information. Once all of that is removed, there is nothing of substance left. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)