Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly, but I advise y'all to fix any citation-needed tags and look hard at any other tags that remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does article stabilty affect a GA outcome on an article? Irondome (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a criteria, IIRC. What's your worry, the use of "blitzkrieg"? Quibbling over details doesn't really count as a stability issue, IMO, so as long as the solution used on the main Kursk article is adopted here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More a concern that if outcome would be changed to "draw" as opposed to current, it would provoke lots of conflicting edits. I know none of us would now, because we all discussed it, but it was a concern for a couple days with me back there. Yeah, I agrre with how you are putting the principle in general. The BK edits are acceptable in terms of co-operative article improvement and the vast talk material to prove it. Wildcat edits kicking off edit wars in the outcome part of info box would be more problematic I guess. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm personally in favor of "draw", I'm not so in love with it that I can't accept something along the lines of the current wording as it's pretty clear that the Germans did a hell of a lot better than the Soviets during the battle and we need to reflect that somehow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i'm quite pleased with it actually :) I think it keeps everyone from flying to the undo link. I think it does reflect German success. Just it was temporary etc, because the strategic situation was in flux, the Red army had greatly improved at the strategic art of the counteroffensive, and it had masses of stuff. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the other {{dubious}} tag, what needs to be done? EyeTruth (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-reference Kosave II (which needs a citation) for those units and dates with Bergstrom and you'll find out that the whole tank killing thing by aircraft was grossly exaggerated. Smith and all the other accounts are flat-out wrong. The quote from the diary of the one tank brigade is quite accurate, but there were a lot fewer kills and a lot more damage/confusion inflicted than most histories acknowledge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. I will look into that. But for some reason comments in this section doesn't affect my Wachtlist. EyeTruth (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dubious content is now fixed. I removed any mention of number of tank kills. I'm not sure if that is enough. BTW, if you have any other requests, notify Irondome or any other editor currently interested in this article. I'm kind of much busier than usual lately and may not be able to respond to suggestions made on here promptly. EyeTruth (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard citation errors:

Brand 2000: no such book is listed in the bibliography (though there is a Brand 2003) Y fixed
Glantz December 1991b: listed in the bibliography but not used in any of the citationsY fixed
Guderian 1937: no such book is listed in the bibliography Y fixed
Guderian 1952: no such book is listed in the bibliography Y fixed
Healy 2008: no such book is listed in the bibliography Y fixed Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manstein 1958: no such book is listed in the bibliography Y fixed
Mellenthin 1956: no such book is listed in the bibliographyY fixed
Moorhouse 2011: no such book is listed in the bibliographyY fixed
Newton 2003: no such book is listed in the bibliography (though there is a Newton 2002)Y fixed
Pinkus 2005: no such book is listed in the bibliographyY fixed
Willmott 1990: no such book is listed in the bibliographyY fixed -- Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. Many of them are in the Battle of Kursk bibliography section. I will fix them later. EyeTruth (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing Clark pp 295-397 to read Clark pp 395-397. We don't need a 100-page range to source that Hitler called off the attack. If someone has ready access and can verify the page numbers are now correct, that would be awesome. Otherwise I will check it next time I am at the library, as we have a copy there. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some of these citation errors, and the remainder need confirmation that we are talking about the same book. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get this show on the road.

The whole background section needs to be compressed to a paragraph or two at most with perhaps double that describing the events on the southern flank preceding the battle. We already have "see main" links prominently located, no need to duplicate information given there; we just need to summarize it to orient the reader to the larger context. What I envision is 1-2 paragraphs for the background, double that for the German advance and doubled again for the preliminary engagement. Details not directly related to II SS-Panzer Corps should be ruthlessly cut. Details regarding the flanking units should be limited to how they affected the SS Corps and its plans/actions.

Background section has been cut back and fits criteria, but I could not get the following section on the German advance down further. Perhaps someone else could get the approach down to 1-2 paragraphs. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When doing this be careful about your links as many of them will in the sections to be compressed/deleted.

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration any mention of blitzkrieg for the overall attack in this article isn't relevant. This is a one-day battle (out of 15 for the whole affair) and only sources that describe this particular battle as a blitzkrieg are relevant.

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a map of the battle itself available? If not, can anybody make one? I'd like to see the plans for both sides compared to the front line at the end of the day. And perhaps the preliminary movements for both sides as well.

Preliminary map provided, but I could not locate one for the battle itself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be sure to distinguish between tanks on hand and operable tanks. We normally only care about the latter, but the possibility of confusion exists. And it's also a nice way of showing just how depleted the Germans were before the battle. For example, the SS only had 15 running Tigers at the beginning of the battle, but had nearly twice that under repair. Numbers should be available in KOSAVE II, of which I have a hard copy, that I use if need be.

I think we are okay here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get into more detail on the actual battles on 12 July?

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The units and strengths for the air forces in the battle need to be covered in more detail. Bergstrom should be the primary source for all this. As much as possible separate out operations and units that didn't operate over II SS-Pz Corps and III Panzer Corps should be excluded. If the info available can't be broken out that neatly, be sure to explain what exactly is covered. And be sure to give sortie totals for the day.
Aerial information should be added for the subsequent operations as well.
Glantz and Clarke are both wrong, XXIV Panzer Corps was transferred just a little bit south to the Izyum sector of 1st Panzer Army in mid-July (the center of AGS's front) and then later further south to the Mius, minus Wiking and 17th Panzer Divisions. 23rd Panzer Division of the corps later went further south to the Mius sector.
Can we expand coverage of the subsequent operations like Roland, etc.?

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Zetterling examine assault gun losses? KOSAVE II does track assault guns and older panzers, you just have to track them on the individual unit pages and cross-ref them against changes in assignments. Also check for data from Zamulin.
First para of the outcomes section needs a cite.

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a book isn't used to cite something move it into a Further Reading section.

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that all of Diannaa's issues have been addressed.

Done Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More once y'all have started to rework the article.

So roughly we should be aiming for about a 20 pc cut in present article size which is maybe compensated for by expansions in air and emphasis on main engagement and Roland, etc? just a rough initial estimate. Sounds fine. Irondome (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. I don't see any reason why we can't discuss the movement/combat of individual brigades as the Soviets attack and the German response(s) in a rough chronological order since we're only discussing one day's work. The map, though, is a real necessity if we're going to get into the nitty-gritty as I can't tell you, off the top of my head, which Soviet units attacked which German ones. Zamulin has a map that could be useful if simplified and redrawn to avoid copyright issues and I'm sure that there are others as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will start having a look round for any open source map material and feed back anything on talk page. Please can others do the same. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the progress on this? Wizardman 04:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worthwhile edits are being made, just nothing's being posted here about progress.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Gunbirddriver#Prokhorovka - I think the prose is ready but I don't know what progress has been made regarding creating a map. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Been doing some gnoming. just stylistic stuff really, nothing controversial. Will crack on a bit later today. Any issues, a revert wont kill me, though I think all tweaks would meet with consensus. Cant find any relevant and usable maps. Was thinking of approaching a couple sites to ask permission to use any relevant P maps. Would email them, but dunno what templates to include. Is there a pro forma email for this sort of thing? Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look OTRS ticket on Commons, I think that has all the necessary information to get somebody to donate their work to Wiki.

We've made some real progress here, but I think that the introductory sections are still too long. Forex we don't need to know the formations and commanders involved on the northern flank, nor do we need so many details on why the battle happened. It's just a summary, people!

Reduction attempted Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me why the battle happened might be important for us. The circumstance of the battle and the controversies around it are interesting and worthy of at least passing mention. Should we not mention the offensive overall was meeting much greater resistence than anticipated? That Russian reserves were far greater than anticipated? That the 5th Tank Army seemed to materialize out of nowhere before the II SS Panzer Corps on 12 July? Or that the III Panzer Corps had been unable to protect the right flank of 4th Panzer Army from attack by the Soviet reserves? Or that Hoth had intended to switch his axis from due north toward Oboyan to the northeast toward Prokhorovka? These all seem important issues to the battle that are often not well known. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure that all the German divisional names are italicized; I already fixed a couple. And after the first use of the full designation, there's no need to use it again; just refer to it be either the name or the shortened designation without the name.

Addressed Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few fact and clarify tags for things that either need citing or need to be verified.

Addressed Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provide metric conversions for all English measurements on first use, even stuff like depths of anti-tank ditches.
Please give rank for individuals on first mention.

Addressed Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that compound adjectives like 15-foot ditch need to be hyphenated.
The aerial stuff is much better, but I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit more myself.
This sentence is totally disconnected from the rest of the paragraph and needs to be integrated into the flow of the narrative: The Soviet air-to-ground communication system failed in the opening hours of 12 July

Removed Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to vehicles like the Churchill and the SU-76 on first mention.

Addressed Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else bothered by the failure to hyphenate SS-Panzer? We can now use hyphens in article titles so I don't see why we can't fix the title of the divisional articles to reflect proper usage and on these pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, this one is pretty stale. Pass or not? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been a full four months since this nomination was opened, and it hasn't been posted to in the past two months by the reviewer, who has opened ten new reviews since early December. It's time that some action be taken. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Sturm? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me to the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; I'll give it another week and if there's no progress I'll close this myself. Wizardman 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've further compressed the preliminary sections and edited a bunch of other stuff to improve readability and improve the flow of the narrative. But I'm reasonably content with it now and am promoting it. If anyone has any issues with my changes, please bring them up on the article's talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]