Talk:Leonid Govorov/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacock.Lane (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far too sketchy for FA (don't worry, I know this is a GA review. I'm just sayin'). See for example the interesting account of the Soviet counter-attack of January 14 in Sunlight At Midnight St. Petersburg And The Rise Of Modern Russia By W. Bruce Lincoln, starting at pg. 297.
The article relies too heavily on a single source.
More good stuff p. 524 of The 900 Days: The Siege Of Leningrad (Paperback) by Harrison Salisbury; The Russian Army: Its Men, Its Leaders and Its Battles By Walter Kerr.
This article would certainly fail FA on 1c, and probably 1b as well. I am considering whether the initial sketchiness violates item 3 of WP:WIAGA.
Kisalev (Киселев) needs an English translation of name in references. Isayev is listed in the notes but not the references. That is a major error; please fix immediately. [NOTE: I believe I found the source. I added it; pls double-check]. Glantz & House in refs but not notes.
I would like to see years of publication in the notes eg Glants 2002, p. 23 or whatever.... I see where User:AustralianRupert rmvd the years, and the logic is reasonable, but you may be adding text from other Glantz books later, or from two books from the same author, etc. Precision is always better than imprecision, particularly since you may need to go back later and fix problems caused by the latter... besides, your citation format is currently inconsistent. Some have years, but some don't.
The Post-war career section is really too sketchy. I know this is summary style and all, but it seems as though some important events/offices may have been left out.
Very haphazard citing practices. Look at note 2, which points to p. 214 of Glantz. The note sits at the end of a three-sentence paragraph (which is fine). However, the contents of the entire third sentence do not appear on Glantz 214, and part of the second sentence as well... looking aklso at the missing Isayev cite, was all this copy/pasted from another Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not WP:RS.
There's no caption under the img. Infobox Military Person has a caption option.
One cite has named refs; the rest do not. I know there are a few people who dislike named refs; I think they are useful. However, you should at least be consistent: use them, or don't. I think you're better off using them. You can run WP:AWB over the article and it will fix this problem.
The writing is very choppy and repetitive. Sentences tend to have the same structure and begin with the same word. This really does need attention.
Again, something fishy about the cites. Look at "In this situation, Govorov's.." cited to Glantz 214. I see where Govorov's exp. as an artilleryman is mentioned, but other details given in that sentence are not mentioned... and Glantz explains the relevance of Govorov's artillery exp. in a different manner. Aagain, looks like a copy/paste job instead of actual research. – Peacock.Lane 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On 18 April the Soviet forces were ordered to the defense". Ordered to what defense? Ordered to begin building defensive fortifications... or...? – Peacock.Lane 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thee is no information about the original sources of the map. Was the entire thing created absolutely from scratch, that is, from a blank white page? If not (and i doubt it was), you need to add information about the underlying sources. – Peacock.Lane 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]