Jump to content

Talk:51st Army (Russia)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old talk

See also http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s51arm.html Involved in Battle of the Crimea (1944). Moved during June 1945 from the Baltic States to the Urals with almost all its forces. Headquarters moved without its troops to Sakhalin in the Far East Military District in 1953. Disbanded by being redesignated 68th Army Corps.

Suggestions/observations

G'day, I am currently doing a few spot checks of older Milhist A-class articles (e.g. 2007-08), to check that they are up to the current standard that we are pushing through per the A-class criteria and A-class FAQ. Overall, this article seems quite good, but I have a couple of suggestions/observations in this regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • there appear to be a few parts or sentences that appear to be uncited - in line citations should be added at a minimum of one per the end of each paragraph. I think refs are needed in the following places (the refs are the main issue, that I see): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • this sentence: "The remains of the force were evacuated"
  • this sentence: "Under tremendous pressure, the Germans organized an armored counter-attack (Doppelkopf) from 16 to 27 August 1944 that succeeded in re-opening a 40-kilometer wide corridor through which Army Group North retreated westward into the Courland region of Latvia."
  • "After 9 May 1945 it accepted the capitulation of the German Army Group Courland."
  • "On 11 October 1993 the 51st Combined Arms Army became the 68th Army Corps."
  • "The 264th Artillery Brigade and 964th Anti-Tank Artillery Regiment were at Solovevka."
  • Does ref 16 cover all the information in the Commanders table? If so, I think this needs to be made explicit in some way - it might be as easy as just adding the namedref to the three headings in the table "Commander[16]/Assumption of Command[16]/Handed over Command[16]
  • can the Russian words in the Remarks column of the OOB be translated?
  • the citations should be formatted consistently - I suggest using a template, although it is not necessary (so long as the style is consistent);
  • Sources: in the sources there is a long citation for Feskov 2004, but a short citation for Feskov 2013...are these two different sources? If so, the full details of the 2013 work also should be added to allow readers to find the work;
  • External links: there are a few deadlinks, which should have archivelinks if possible: [1]
  • the lead seems a bit short, and could possibly be expanded a little more;
  • in the lead, "final cutting-off of German forces in the Courland area next to the Baltic..." - it should probably be stated what year this occurred;
  • in the lead " it was involved in the Crimean debacle", I don't think it is a good idea to label it a "debacle" as that seems to be unattributed opinion;
    • The opinion is that of the pioneer, leading British historian of the Sov war effort, John Erickson (historian). The rule is that one does not put references in the article intro. However I've copied the ref from the body to the intro since a cite was specifically requested.
  • quotations should be attributed in text, for instance: "due to Kuznetsov's 'sticking blindly to the prewar plan', which..." (i.e which author/historian states this?)
  • opinions/judgements should be attributed in text, for instance: "and a trail of incompetent actions" (i.e. who says that they were incompetent?)
    • Erickson, again, as referred to in the ref.
  • "File:Monument to Warriors of 51 Army on Sapun Mountain in Sevastopol.jpg": not sure about this licence, does freedom of panorama apply?
  • I haven't been able to find anything about this. There is an inscription on the monument which might contain the details, but I can't read it, unfortunately. Buckshot: do you have anything in this regard? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Likely not an FOP issue, still a copyright issue. Unlike the other photo, this one is a straight-on shot of just the engraved words and image - I would tend to interpret that as a reproduction of a 2D rather than a 3D work. The source link from Commons is dead, so I can't verify the details of Ukrainian law, but it's typical for such laws to treat engraving as 2D rather than 3D. Assuming this is the case, the photographer receives no copyright, so the current claim is incorrect. There may be a case to claim the engraving is PD, assuming that the text is non-creative (can't read it), as the creative elements would thus be minimal - but that's probably pushing things. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • is there an image of 51st Army troops in action that could be added? If so, it would be a good addition (not a requirement, but would certainly be an improvement);
    • NB I searched without success for this, the above photo was the only thing findable. Might be better material now.
  • the "Order of Battle in the 1980s" section seems a bit lonely by itself. I think it might be a better idea to create an overall "Order of Battle section" with a couple of subsections, i.e. during World War II and then the post war era
  • I suggest hiving off the commanders sub-section to a separate section (outside of Formation history);
  • the "Further reading" section could be expanded to include a couple of other relevant books, while I'd suggest moving the website to an "External links" section.

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Buckshot06: Is anyone able to help deal with these concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, everyone. There are a couple of minor points left, but overall I'm confident that the article is much closer to current A-class standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Erickson

I see that this was discussed before, but would like to raise again, as it struck me as odd (before I saw it discussed on this Talk page).

Per Erickson, the 51st Army was "involved in the Crimean debacle of May 1942..." I suggest rewording this to a more neutral/factual interpretation, for the following reasons:

  • The word debacle does not appear on the page again, nor does it appear in the linked article. It therefore does not strike me as the generally accepted name for what occurred.
  • This is Erickson's opinion. For comparison, Glantz & House (When Titans Clashed) use disaster – this is also their opinion, and as such, it should be attributed to the source
  • Debacle implies judgement on the part of the editors (more so than disaster); to avoid this, suggest either attributing to Erickson as a direct quotation, or rephrasing. (I think a direct quotation from Erickson would be appropriate in the body of the article to indicate the scope of the debacle/disaster/catastrophe.)

I also suggest changing the way the article links to the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula. For example, it links in the lead as the debacle, but not in the body, where we have "the Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation in December 1941..." – but not as a direct link to original operation, which was was a success (also per Glantz & House). This creates a dissonance (at least it did for me, as in "where's the debacle?")

Suggested wording for the lead, along the lines of: The army participated in the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in December 1941–January 1942; it was destroyed in May 1942 with other Soviet forces when the Wehrmacht launched an operation to dislodge them from the peninsula (or something to this effect).

Please let me know your thoughts on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Those changes look ok to me. Thanks for your input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The credit for implementing the change in the lead goes to Kges1901; I just added the links in the body :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks, Kges, for your efforts, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move

G'day, all, I think this article should be moved to 51st Army (Soviet Union), with "51st Army" becoming a dab listing the Soviet formation and the Japanese formation of the same designation. Are there any concerns with this move? If not, I will look to implement it in a week or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've previously though of moving it. Kges1901 (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Can't be 51st Army (Soviet Union), except as a redirect, because it was in Russian service from 1992-97. Should be 51st Army (Russia). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
G'day, good point. I could live with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Done now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:51st_Army_(Russia)/Archive_1&oldid=1249427084"