Talk:Operation Uranus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am taking my time to thoroughly review the article "Operation Uranus." A full write up will be available when I am finished. Zipline (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: After going over the article with a proverbial fine-bristled comb I’ve found very few flaws. The article definitely meets, and often exceeds the GA qualifications. That said, there are a few things that I noticed:
- In the 1st and 3rd paragraphs of the “Background” section “Germany” is used where “German” should be. I corrected this.
- In the 1st paragraph of the “Background” section a sentence read, “The following day, the avant-garde of the Sixth Army…” I found this wording to be unusual given the context, and so changed avant-garde to vanguard.
- In the 2nd paragraph of the “Background” section a sentence read, “However, there were signals of an impending Soviet offensive…” As with the last note, the wording seemed off, so I replaced “signals” with “indications.”
- In the 3rd paragraph of the “Background” section there was a misplaced comma in one sentence. This was removed.
- In the 2nd paragraph of the “Comparison of forces” section, under the subheading “German forces” a sentence partially reads, “…in reality these units were issued equipment largely obsolete…” I changed this to “…in reality these units were issued largely obsolete equipment….”
- There were a few other removed commas and edited words but the last change I made that could affect the article in a serious way is in the 3rd paragraph of “Comparison of forces” under the subheading, “German forces.” There part of a sentence reads, “Two panzer, the elite Leibstandarte and the Grobdeutchland divisions were redeployed…” This was altered to “Two panzer divisions, the elite Leibstandarte and the Grobdeutchland were redeployed…”
- I would like to note that the article only references a handful of works, and while I don’t own any of these and so cannot verify the citations, a quick search of reviews of the books and articles has turned up positive reviews for accuracy. It would be nice to see more varied sources, but it’s not a vital concern. Zipline (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick and specific review! All the changes made make sense, and I have no objections to them; making the prose easier to understand is of vital concern, and you have definitely made certain sentences much simpler and easier to read. In regards to sources, I will be receiving a new source through the mail at some point soon (within the next two weeks), and that will definitely be added to the article. Again, thank you for the review! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem at all. To be honest, the only quibble I really had with the article was that the sources were somewhat limited, but if you're bringing in more then there's nothing holding this back. I look forward to seeing this as a Featured Article! Zipline (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick and specific review! All the changes made make sense, and I have no objections to them; making the prose easier to understand is of vital concern, and you have definitely made certain sentences much simpler and easier to read. In regards to sources, I will be receiving a new source through the mail at some point soon (within the next two weeks), and that will definitely be added to the article. Again, thank you for the review! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)