Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Iskra

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not promoted at this time EyeSerenetalk 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Iskra[edit]

Nominator(s): D2306 (talk)
Toolbox

An article on an important battle during the Siege of Leningrad. This article was just approved as GA, and I think it can get to A-class as well. D2306 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  1. Haupt, Werner , Krivosheev, Grigoriy , Meretskov, Kirill are all listed but do not seem to have been used Done Moved to "Further Reading". They were used in older versions of the article.
  2. Where is Atlegen, PA. I presume its an abbreviation for a US state? for those of us from the rest of the world its better spelled out in full. Done
  3. Others seem to be missing publishing locations (unable to read Russian so apologise if they are there)  Done All references now have publishers.
  4. Krivosheev, Grigoriy. missing the year of publication Done
  5. References 2 and 3 / 4 and 5 / 15,16 and 17 / 19,20 and 21 / 23 and 25/ 29 and 30 / 31 and 32 / 41 and 42 are the same they should be combined by using ref name  Done If you see any more duplicates, tell me.
  6. The Germans strength in the inf box needs a cite as its not covered elsewhere. Done
  7. In the lede the convert template can be used for 8–10 km and elsewhere in the article sometimes its used and sometimes not. Done Now used everywhere.
  8. 96th Infantry Division should be linked on first use. Done
  9. What makes http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm a reliable site and an access date is required
Ok this is a complicated one. Sources are quite confusing about the first captured Tiger. Some sources, including Wilbeck in his "Sledgehammers" book, say the first captured Tiger was during the Sinyavin Offensive (1942) in the same area. Other sources, including many documentaries and Soviet generals' memoirs say it was captured during Iskra, specifying it was this tank:
However memoirs or documentaries are not good A-class sources.
The Russian wikipedia article on the tiger tank makes the most sense. It says that essentially both these claims are correct. The first being the first captured Tiger, while Iskra was the first captured undamaged Tiger, which was indeed used in the photograph. Unfortunately the sources that article is using are hardly better than the one you are concerned about. So I would welcome reliable sources or advice on how to best put this info in or remove it altogether.D2306 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I am glad to have seen this article through the GAN process. However, I don't think it meets the A-class citeria at the moment.
    • Only three used sources, could you not use any of the books listed in Further reading? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, there is no requirement on the quantity of sources for A-class. As for the sources themselves:
        • Glantz (2005) is a different edition of Glantz (2002)
        • Krivosheev's figures are already used by both Glantz and Isayev
        • Meretskov's memoirs are not the reputable reliable source for A-class. I could use it to put in a quote, but not for any accurate information.
        • Haupt again, more memoirs and recollections.D2306 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can't find anything, that is forgivable, but the more the better, no?
    • Transliteration of Cyrillic into Latin characters has been done for two authors, another would be appreciated (located in Further Reading). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Comments: good work so far, but I think there are a few things that need to be addressed before it can be awarded an A-class rating:
    • no copyright violation per CorenSearchBot: [1] (no action required);
    • no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
    • you might consider adding alt text to the images per WP:ALT, but it is only a suggestion;
    • File:Iskra german defences.JPG does not seem to be correctly attributed. Currently it says its source is "Soviet Photograph" - this actually needs to be where the uploader obtained it from. Did you get it from a book or a website? If so, those details should be listed. Also, the date field does not seem correct. Basically it is saying that the image was taken in 2010, but actually it should be "January 1943";
    • this Google search produces a number of results for Siege of Leningrad + Iskra: [2]. It might be worthwhile looking at some of these sources, because currently it does seem a little light in terms of cited works. Remember A-class criteria 1 asks for an article to "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", thus it is important to demonstrate this by citing multiple works. Currently it is mainly cited to two authors and while I recognise that they may be the main contributors in the field, I don't think this is enough to satisfy the A-class requirement at the moment. Even if a number of sources agree on the same thing, it probably wouldn't hurt to add in citations to other works for variation and corroboration;
    • the capitalisation in the infobox seems a little off: "Soviet Strategic Victory, Siege of Leningrad eased". This should probably be "Soviet strategic victory, Siege of Leningrad eased";
    • there is currently a mixture of British and American spelling, e.g. "defenses" and "defences";
    • what makes achtungpanzer.com reliable? Is the author an established expert? Does it cite its sources? If it is not a reliable source, it will need to be removed and replaced;
    • Citation # 34 should have accessdate information added to it;
    • minor nitpick: some of the citations have a space between the full stop and number, but others don't. For instance "Glantz p. 262" v. "Glantz p.280". These should be consistent;
    • sometimes you use single quotes, e.g. 'Road of Life', and then later double quotes, e.g. "Iskra". Seems inconsistent;
    • is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Haupt work in the Further reading section?
    • is it Ladoga Lake, or Lake Ladoga? Currently both forms are used, consistency is best;
    • in the Background section, you should probably clarify who made attempts to breach the blockade, for instance: "During 1942 several attempts were made by the Soviets to breach the blockade but all failed." (added "by the Soviets");
    • in the Preparations section, this is not grammatically correct: "One of the key locations were the Sinyavin heights". This should be: "One of the key locations was the Sinyavin heights";
    • there is some repetition here: "which were some 150 metres higher than the surrounding flat terrain, which were one of the few dry and clear areas, and in addition provided good observation" (a number of clauses that begin with "which were"). I suggest rewording for variation;
    • in the Soviet preparations section, this is not grammatically correct: "opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor". Because "10 kilometres" is being used as an adjective to describe the corridor, it should be: "opening a 10 kilometre (6.2 mi) corridor" (difference: kilometre v. kilometres). This can be achieved by adding the following code: "|adj=on" to the convert template;
    • in the Battle section, I think you need a paired comma in this sentence: "One improvised battle group consisting of five battalions from the 96th Infantry Division, supported by artillery and four Tiger tanks moved to Gorodok No. 2 to reinforce the...". A comma should be added after "four Tiger tanks" in my opinion;
    • in the Battle section, this seems a little awkward, "and attacked the German rear lines." It would probably sound better as: "and attacked the German rear area.";
    • in the Battle section, this seems a little awkward, "the Soviet forces cleared Shlisselburg and Lipka from German forces". It would probably sound better as: "the Soviet forces cleared Shlisselburg and Lipka of German forces";
    • in the Aftermath section, I think there is a word missing here: "The Soviet forces carried several other offensives in the area in 1943". I think it should be: "The Soviet forces carried out several other offensives in the area in 1943" (addition of the word "out");
    • given the above grammar points, it might be advisable to seek out a copy editor at the Guild or somewhere else who can go through the article and tighten it up as I might have missed some points;
    • in the Aftermath section, I suggest wikilinking "salient" to Salients, re-entrants and pockets, as the casual reader might not be familiar with the term;
    • is there any image that could be added to the Aftermath section? Maybe an image of equipment destroyed in the fighting, or something similar?
    • also, perhaps you might consider adding an "iconic" image to the infobox, rather than the map which could then be used in the body of the article perhaps (this is a suggestion only, not required). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • regarding the maps, I think that you might need to include more source details. For instance, what sources were consulted to determine the location of various positions, the movement of forces, the positions that were destroyed, etc? What sources were used to determine the topography, etc.?
      • Many thanks for the comments. I will not be too active in the upcoming week, so please do allow me some time to answer all the comments.D2306 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. The ACR will be due for closure on 24 February (the usual timeframe for an ACR is 28 days), but if others agree, there shouldn't be any dramas with keeping it open for a bit longer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, how are you going with responding to these comments? The review has now been open three days passed its scheduled closing date. In order to maintain fairness to other nominators this will need to be listed for closing shortly (the next 24 hours or so). Given that it doesn't look like there is enough support at this time for promotion (a minimum of three supports is required), it might make sense just to have this ACR closed as unsuccessful; you can then work on the comments in your leisure and re-nominate for another ACR at a later date when you feel you've addressed everything. Please let us know what you want to do. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems that tis is the best thing to do. I am still too busy to respond to comments within the next couple of days. I will address them in time and renominate the article later.D2306 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, no worries. I've listed it for closing now. It might take a few days, though, as the co-ords are a bit busy at the moment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Iskra&oldid=416714899"