Talk:Battle of the Kerch Peninsula/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Exceptionally well written. Both encyclopedic and gripping.	Pass
(b) (MoS)		Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	A good set of quality RSs.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The article is completely sourced and the sources meet the standards of WP:RS, almost all being books from academic publishers. I have checked several of the books referenced and can verify the accuracy of the content referenced to them, The others are accepted in GF.	Pass
(c) (original research)	There is no evidence of OR.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Passes Earwig with flying colours	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects are covered. This is by far the most comprehensive short account of the campaign I have come across.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article stays entirely focused on the matter in hand.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Richly and appropriately illustrated with free use images	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Appropriately and informatively captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	An article destined for FA. Well written, tightly sourced, comprehensive in scope. Encyclopedic in tone and still engages the reader. A fine study of this often neglected campaign. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Give me a day or two and I'll get back to this. (One of my favourite campaigns.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC) @Kges1901: Some first thoughts to keep you going.

• I don't really understand the copyright caveat on the two ship images, so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
• Bibliography. The three Osprey titles need publisher location. (Oxford).

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Infobox. Strength: I always dislike comparing divisions with men. It leaves a reader none the wiser. Would it be possible to give the total number of men in the Axis force? Or the number of divisions in the Soviet? (Even if we have to source it to Manstein.) Or, ideally, both. Are there any figures for the number of Soviet AFVs? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Added figures for German strength from Russian source citing German archive documents, Soviet tank strength from Soviet archive documents. Kges1901 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I note that during Trappenjagd the Soviets lost 417 aircraft (lead) from a strength of 404 (infobox).

• Contradiction is contained in the source. It is possible that more Soviet aircraft were flown in and lost between 8 and 20 May which is more than enough time for replacements to arrive. Reading further, Hooton, the source, seems to be talking about two different figures - he mentions 404 under Crimean Front VVS (air force) for strength and 417 losses, 315 of which were Crimean Front VVS at the end of the operation. The 102 extra were presumably Naval Aviation or Transcaucasian Front VVS; I will check an updated Russian source for presumably better information. Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Upon further inspection Hootton's figures are from a Christer Bergstrom book, which cites Crimean Front VVS documents in the archives as the source. I have clarified in the infobox. Kges1901 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• "... and its successful conclusion enabled the Axis to conquer Sevastopol within six weeks." Can you source that "enabled"? It seems, to me, to imply that the Kerch victory inevitably led to the fall of Sevastopol. I would have thought that Kerch was necessary but not sufficient.
• Optional. Could this be rephrased? "but was uncertain about the Soviet point of main effort due to the disunited nature of the Soviet forces."
• "By midnight, IR 97 had its 1st and 3rd Battalions and two artillery batteries in position for a counterattack the next day" I may have missed it, but I don't think that IR has previously been noted as an abbreviation.
• "... and helped drive the Soviet naval infantry back to its beachhead but the Germans delayed their main attack for the next day." '... until the next day?'
• "Feodosia, a mid-sized town with a pre-war population of 28,000, was lightly defended by two coastal artillery battalions and 800 combat engineers under the command of Oberstleutnant Hans von Ahlfen, who were refitting from the assault on Sevastopol." '... which were...'?
• "Sponeck was relieved from his command on 29 December for insubordination and court-martialed in Germany three weeks later." British English would have it as '... relieved of his command...'.
• "302nd Mountain Division sprang forth from its Kamysh Burun bridgehead to capture Kerch on 31 December after 46th Infantry Division's retreat." Sprang forth!? Peacock phrase.
• It may be helpful to explain what an Panzerjäger-Abteilung is.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• " Otto Hitzfeld's IR 213 attacked, supported by I. and II./IR 42 from the 46th Infantry Division and three StuG IIIs" I suspect that "I. and II./IR 42" will mean little to the uninitiated.
• "In the north, 46 ID and the Romanian 8th Cavalry Brigade launched distraction attacks..." ID?
• "The Red Army troops in the town fought on desperately through heavy street combat but were mercilessly annihilated by constant Stuka attacks as well as German artillery and machine gun fire." mercilessly annihilated - peacock.
• "Her commanding officer escaped but was convicted and executed by a Soviet military tribunal three weeks later." Its, not her.
• "Stavka representative Lev Mekhlis arrived at the Crimean Front HQ in late January and interposed his own opinions into planning." To me "interposed ... into planning" doesn't really work.
• "... and Soviet cargo shipping prevented a sufficient logistical buildup and made Stalin's demand an unrealistic fantasy." Fantasy boders on peacock. '...made Stalin's demand unrealistic.'?
• "as the 77th Mountain Rifle Division made a small penetration and captured the small Kiet village." 2 x "small". Maybe delete the second? Or use 'hamlet'?
• "turning them into easy targets for German Panzerjägers and artillery" What's a Panzerjager? Why are you writing in a foreign language?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• This article was expanded by User:TiltuM, not by myself. I nominated it for GA because I have access to the same sources and felt that the detail and referencing was of GA quality. Kges1901 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: I would completely agree with that. About my picky points. Do you want to sort them? Would you prefer me to use my judgement? Would you care to put a hash next to any you are happy for me to change, I'll do that, and then review if anything left is enough to deny it GA status? We ought to share with User:TiltuM my comment on your talk page: "A superb article. I wish that I could write that well." Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Kges1901:. I am quite prepared to deal with most of the "picky points" above myself. Just give the word. I am always reluctant to make changes to someone else's prose, especially when it's this good, without giving them a chance to defend it, or change it how they want to. I do a lot of work at GOCE, so give the word and I'll crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• You are free to copyedit. Kges1901 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you, Kges1901 and Gog the Mild, for reviewing the article. My question to Kges1901: is the figure of 232,549 Germans for the Kerch forces only or for the entire 11th Army? One corps was deployed against Sevastopol and should not count here, as the Soviet figure of 249,800 does not include the Coastal Army or Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol either. The topic pertains to the question of whether the Germans were outnumbered or not. TiltuM (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@TiltuM: The document used as the source is available here. Unfortunately the Germans do not appear to have broken these down by unit. Perhaps adding up corps reports would be more accurate? Kges1901 (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, combined corps' strengths, with attached army-level units, would be better. This problem recurs in the article, with the casualty data for both the Germans and Soviets incorporating the Sevastopol fighting in the December–April period. Forczyk and the Heeresarzt have only full AOK 11 and all Soviet Crimean forces casualties for that period. An inflated but sourced infobox strength is far better than nothing, so no immediate need to replace, unless the German Trappenjagd personnel figures are available somewhere. TiltuM (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @TiltuM: Soviet strength is accurate, any figures for Crimean Front include only units at Kerch as the Sevastopol force, the Separate Coastal Army, was not part of the Crimean Front. Kges1901 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901 and TiltuM: A query. "The spring thaw arrived in early May". This usually means heavy mud. But Trappenjagd began on 8 May. And across boggy ground. Are we sure that we have this right? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: 'boggy' can also mean muddy, in a sense, and I do not see why this is not what is meant. Kges1901 (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)