Talk:Case Blue/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I'll get to this sometime this week. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I've given up on adding awkward tags. Please contact the WP:GOCE for a thorough copyedit.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Use an n-dash between page ranges in the references. Repeated overlinking and many links are provided on the second or later use. Please link only the first mention. Panzer and Luftwaffe are common words in English and I see no need to italicize them. That's your call, however, but if you do decide to italicize them then be consistent.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
One cite tag added

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
No mention of the repeated Soviet attacks on the German flank near Voronezh. No use of Glantz and House's recent To the Gates of Stalingrad, which details the those attacks as well as the stubborn Soviet defence of the Don Bend. Contrary to earlier assertions, 6th Army didn't amble to Stalingrad; it fought a grinding attritional campaign in the Don Bend. Wilhelm Tieke's The Caucasus and the Oil is the best reference in English on that campaign and needs to be referenced. As would Andrei Grechko's The Battle for the Caucasus.

I've added a little bit about the Soviet counterattacks around Voronezh, but I don't have time now to add the rest of the missing material. I would strongly urge that you borrow the books that I've mentioned in this review before resubmitting for GA as I feel this article is still incomplete. It glosses over much that should be given more attention, IMO. It might be worthwhile breaking out the individual phases as separate articles while this article deals mostly with the high-level strategy, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Who says that it was a mistake not have devoted more effort to hitting the oil refineries? Judgments and conclusions need to be credited to a published author, otherwise it's WP:OR. The deployment and actions of the flanking Axis-Allied armies should be covered in a little more detail. Mark Axworthy's Third Axis/Fourth Ally and Leo Niehorster's The Royal Hungarian Army would be useful sources for this. Did the Soviets attempt to exploit the gap between the army groups?
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I expanded the drive to Stalingrad section. Its now more detailed, including the Soviet resistance and Soviet attacks on Army Group B's left flank at the Don, i hope that was what you meant. Its not possible for me to get Glantz, Tieke's or Grechko's book, so i cant include them. I also added more on the involvement of the other Axis forces, mostly about the Romanians and the Italians, as the Hungarian 2nd Army didnt saw as much action until late January. I also added n-dashes and removed the links, but i left some very few double-links, because the first link was in the lead. I also de-italicized Luftwaffe and Panzer completly. Which gap did you mean? The one between Army group B and A? There was no attack from this direction, i guess because the area there was mostly no-mans-land, and it would have been a logistical nightmare to mount an offensive there. There were of course some local attacks by the Soviets against the Elista-Atrahkan road, without much consequences. Regarding "Who says that it was a mistake not have devoted more effort to hitting the oil refineries? Judgments and conclusions need to be credited to a published author, otherwise it's WP:OR." i dont know what you mean with this, where is this said in the article? I can source everything if i missed something. Regarding the "awkward tags" i dont know, maybe some english native speaker should look over the article? I thought at least its ok, because there were already some people at the article and fixed some things. I changed the background part, because there was such a tag. StoneProphet (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means the section about the bombing of the oilfields, which I put in.

It is not OR. I've already pointed out that this has a source. A reviewer shouldn't be asking this question when there is a citation which covers the paragraph at the bottom.

If you look below, he is pointing to the fact there is no citation for paratrooper operations against the oilfields. Dapi89 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone now copyedited the article, but he made a different approach regarding the dashes. He also added some tags, but i changed the article to deal with them. StoneProphet (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Prose quality: the phrases used are in the sources, but a handful of words moved here and there are more than enough to sought it out, so it is not "awkward". Re: air attacks on oil fields: Well, the citation that is placed at the end of the paragraph is usually an indication of who says so. Dapi89 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not find them awkward, but I certainly do, regardless of how much you paraphrased your sources. As for cites, you are quite correct. However, p. 167 in Hayward made no mention of any paratrooper attacks on the Grozny oilfields. StoneProphet has added an acceptable cite which fixes the issue and is more accurate than the original statement. I find his actions in addressing the issues that I raised far more productive than complaining about my judgement like you did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not a complaint, it was a statement of fact.

You did not say anything about the paratroopers, just who was making the statement about the bombing errors.

The oilfield stuff is fine. Nice and simple. And I did address them. Dapi89 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about the paratroopers was originally from me, but seem to ended somehow in the Hayward section, which was added by Dapi. StoneProphet (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay, but I've been busy in RL. I still feel that this article is incomplete and fails on that basis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics

A major concern it the lack of discussion concerning Axis logistics, the feasibility of the operation owing to terrain, and the misapplication of resources. In particular, no mention of air power is made. It was critical in Soviet and Axis operations. Dapi89 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some additions to highlight logistical difficulties. I will consult with Bergstrom and Mikhailov. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning the strategic bombing campaign against the Soviet oil fields, once it was realised the Axis could capture them? Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i made some hints on this matter, especially at the Stalingrad section, but i didnt wanted to go into too much detail of the aerial warfare, since this was a large scale ground campaign. With the exception of Stalingrad i also couldnt found very much about this subject, but again, since we have a big Stalingrad battle article, i didnt wanted to expand this topic too much. Nevertheless i appreciate your additions. Regarding the strategic bombing campaign against the Soviet oil fields you can add a sentence about it, i have never heard about that before, so i dont know the extend or importance of this. StoneProphet (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine; this is your party so I don't want to tread on your toes. I was going to add more on Soviet aviation, and I will, but as you say, it should be kept very general unless a very noteworthy action takes place which had significant effects at higher levels. You mention that you thought about logistics, and I believe you were right to. It is an essential part of Blau and its ultimate failure. Logistically, it was going to be difficult with Plan A, much less Plan B. The irony: Germans don't do strategy very well, but in the one moment where solid and sound strategy is identified and implemented, they choose a goal which was beyond their operational capabilities. It is not the only irony of German military behaviour! Dapi89 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have added logistics throughout the article as it was the main problem for the Axis. I have also added more on the performance of aviation including the strategic bombing of Soviet oil fields. I've tried to be general and avoid too much detail. I hope this enhances the article. Dapi89 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those are additions are very nice, thank you. But at "On 26 or 28 October 1942, Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, was taken by the 2nd Romanian Mountain Division and 13th Panzer Division which ... 10,000 Soviets in two days, before the" there is a word missing. 10,000 Soviets "captured", "killed", or something else? StoneProphet (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed it in my ce, though I had seen it. You might want to move citation 68 to the biblio. Dapi89 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whether it is necessary for a single ref to add it to the bibliography, since i used it only for the date and the book has a not much to do with the article topic. StoneProphet (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Dapi89 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update II: Background

I though it would be better to explain why the oild fields were so important and why Hitler pursued this strategy, hence the inserted sections. Does the agree with you? Dapi89 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its ok if it is not expanded anymore. But why did you change my "the Soviet counter-offensive" back to "a Soviet counter-offensive"? This clearly refers to Uranus, the only Soviet counteroffensive at this date, and with "a" it may could confuse the reader, who would think that there was more than one counter-offensive. Especially since this is mentioned in the Caucasus section, where the Stalingrad and Volga campaign had not yet been introduced to the reader. StoneProphet (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised. I did a copy and past job - it must have got lost. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I've done what I think needed to be included. Hope this helped. I dare not do anymore, unless it gets too detailed. Dapi89 (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. StoneProphet (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review started well but now there hasn't been any comments in a couple weeks. What's the status of this one? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know, maybe Sturmvogel forgot that this review is still open. StoneProphet (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]