Talk:Tallinn offensive

factual accuracy

Sorry that I have no time at the moment to rewrite the article. So please anybody feel free to help out if you got a chance, I'm "bookmarking" this article and going to return to this ASAP. The facts are straight forward and down below also spelled out somewhat: On September 22, 1944 there was no German troops left anywhere near Tallinn. The German troops had retreated from Tallinn on September 17. [1] On Sept 18. Estonian independence was re-declared in Tallinn [2] The power in Tallinn had been taken over by the Estonian government by the Sept.20 , see [3] and the only troops facing the Soviets in their Tallinn Offensive were units led by Johan Pitka who reported directly to the Estonian government, and in fact had clashes with the German troops as well. [4].

Currently the article is based on the Soviet historiography [5] and is factually inaccurate.--Termer (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It does miss the facts pointed out by you.--Erikupoeg (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Erikupoeg keep the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic clear in the article lead section that should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article,... —including any notable controversies that may exist.--Termer (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict has been made up by you, Termer. The lead section which you just erased presents a neutral point of view of what happened in the Soviet Tallinn Offensive which started with the breakthrough in Emajõgi. This is an article about a military operation. You're doing the same mistake as with the lead section of the Battle of Narva (1944) article - overemphasizing the role of the Estonian resistance movement. First of all, it is an article about a military operation. The decisive battles of the Tallinn Operation were fought in the Emajõgi front. In the military sense, the rest was a sideshow. The evacuation of the Army Group "Narwa" and the attempt to restore the Government of Estonia deserve to be shortly stated in the lead, no more.--Erikupoeg (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to present conflicting views in the lead section. In its essence, a lead section of a historical article should be a concise description of what happened. In your view, the lead section starts with confusion and bogs down in a disproportionately long description of the Government of Otto Tief. --Erikupoeg (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the term 'nationalist' - in the context of World War II, the term 'Estonian' is vague. It could mean a number of conflicting groups, namely 8th Estonian Rifle Corps, Estonian SS Division, or Estonian resistance. I would welcome a term other than 'Estonian nationalists' which would address the troops of the Estonian resistance. Until anybody comes up with one, it's 'nationalists'. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that dividing this article, let alone lead section into conflicting views is not a good idea. Simplistically said, a Wikipedia article cannot be created out of mixing paragraphs from Britannica and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that has worked so far on Wikipedia while dealing with controversial subjects, dividing articles up following the controversies according to WP:NPOV & WP:YESPOV. The lead section which you just reverted to doesn't represents a neutral point of view according to this edit [6] where the {{POV}} tag was attached to this article, and that was the reason I went back to the version where 'conflicting verifiable perspectives' + 'including any notable controversies' were spelled out. And this 'conflict' is not anything that 'has been made up by me' since I only cited what the sources said. However, I hope that I'm wrong and you can maintain the stability of this article with the alternative approach of yours. In case not and anybody attaches POV tags to this article in the future, I'm afraid the article would need to return to following the ideas in WP:YESPOV & WP:LEAD.

Now, on Considering the term 'nationalist', first of all calling any conscription military units during WWII 'nationalist' is a strong opinion that would require a citation at least. The second 'nationalist' in the context is not far from "nazi" - short for National Socialism an therefore is misleading. And the term 'Estonian' is not vague in any way since it talks about the people -Estonians. And surely the military units were put together of Estonians, the citizens of the Republic of Estonia unlike for example the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps.--Termer (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilder's edit that introduced a POV tag [7] also added such a thing: 'Estonian nazi troops' (note the wikilink to Rep. of Estonia). Apart from the addition of a map, this edit can be qualified as classical POV-pushing.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second to Miacek's opinion - a POV tag by an edit calling the "Pitka Boys" nazies is hardly worth discussion, let alone the deletion of a lead section. There is no conflict between the Soviet and Western historiography - both agree with the facts presented in the current version of the article.

I agree with Termer, that the term 'nationalist' may be misleading, but 'Estonians' could mean not only the nationality but also the ethnicity, so it is vague. --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd wouldn't mind it if it was the case that There is no conflict between the Soviet and Western historiography - both agree with the facts presented in the current version of the article. In fact its exact opposite, the different interpretation of history, especially on the subject is the core of many controversies between Estonia and Russia nowadays. First of all the term "Tallinn Offensive" is used only by the soviet sources and according to it The Tallinn offensive of the Leningrad Front forces on September 17 — 26 drove the fascists out of the Estonian mainland. Now someone who's familiar with this concept would most likely call the Pitka Unit Nationalist-Nazi-Fascist etc. therefore I'm not that surprised at all seeing it happening as edited by Wilder. On the other hand there are clearly different facts laid out by sources published in western countries that speak basically about a little Estonian version of "Warsaw Uprising", something that the Soviet or modern Russian official history doesn't even mention.

Estonians could mean not only the nationality but also the ethnicity, so it is vague. In the context Estonians is not vague at all since you have wiki-lineked it not to ethnicity Estonians but to nationality Estonia. And all citizens of Estonia were recognized as such in the western occupation zones after the war. Unlike the Soviet occupation zone were such people were taken as Soviet citizens. Yet another controversy, so an idea that There is no conflict between the Soviet and Western historiography is wishful thinking at best I'm afraid.--Termer (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the conflict between the statement: "The Tallinn offensive of the Leningrad Front forces on September 17 — 26 drove the fascists out of the Estonian mainland," and anything we know about Pitka Boys and the Government of Otto Tief. Indeed, the major military outcome of the Soviet operation was capturing mainland Estonia from Army Group "Narwa". The decisive breakthrough took place in the Combat in South Estonia, 1944. The battles with the retreating German forces like the Battle of Porkuni were notable for the war crimes committed by native Estonians against their compatriots. Compared to these battles, the battles by the few hundred "Pitka Boys" and desertees from the Estonian SS Division had at their best a symbolic meaning. The facts about the Estonian patriot troops do not contradict the Soviet concept but can easily be added to it. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't see a conflict between "Tallinn was liberated from Fascist on September 22" vs. "Patriots in Tallinn seized the government buildings and proclaimed a national government" as reported by the Royal Institute of International Affairs [8]? In case you don't see a conflict, the way I'm reading this, what are you saying exactly is that the patriots who had seized power in Tallinn were in fact the Fascist that Tallinn was liberated from by the Soviet troops. There is no other way to interpret your opinion since according to the sources, by September 22 there was no German troops left anywhere near Tallinn and the only Fascists that the capital could have been liberated from, was the Otto Tief government and the troops loyal to it. You must have heard of the "Day of the Liberation of Tallinn from Fascism on September 22"?? Sorry but I'm getting confused with your contradicting statements. Earlier you claimed that "an edit calling the "Pitka Boys" nazies is hardly worth discussion", and now you're basically agreeing with Wilder, that Tallinn was liberated from Fascists on September 22?--Termer (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It may sound confusing, but it is no more than a matter of time scale. In the time scope of the early hours of 22 September, you are presenting, there is a conflict. In fact, the article is called Tallinn Operation with the time scope of 17-26 Sept. In the campaign, the clashes between the Pitka Boys and the Red Army troops were a sideshow. The decisive battles were fought with the Army Group "Narwa" and it is perfectly correct to say that the breakthrough across the Emajõgi front captured Tallinn from the Army Group North. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be clear about it. Was Tallinn liberated from Fascists on September 22? And what was "the early hours of 22 September" all about? the German troops retreated from Tallinn on September 17, 1944 [9] and Estonian independence was re-declared in Tallinn on September 18, 1944 [10]? So once again, please be clear about it, who exactly were the Fascists Tallinn was liberated from on September 22?--Termer (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll keep getting nowhere, until we start talking about the same campaign - Tallinn Offensive, 17-26 September. The events of 22 September are described in the body of the text and we agree on them already. The lead section presents a concise overview of the campaign as it happened in reality. What are we arguing about? --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that "There is no conflict between the Soviet and Western historiography - both agree with the facts presented in the current version of the article" simply is not true. The only thing I can make out of it either you're not familiar with the Soviet historiography on the subject, never followed up the source I posted for your convenience? The bottom line, in case you think there is no controversy here that should be spelled out in order to maintain the stability of this article, the only thing I can say, I hope you're right.--Termer (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The newsflash by the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs does not present an alternative view of the Tallinn Offensive. It merely presents a single related fact which adds easily to the Soviet view about their offensive in Emajõgi beating Army Group "Narwa" to capture Tallinn and mainland Estonia to the Soviet hands.--Erikupoeg (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What has the newsflash to do with anything that I've been talking about? I give up because we're clearly not communicating here, instead the discussion goes in circles. Again, I hope you're right and good luck with the article!--Termer (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake mixing the sources up. Let's take the Soviet source], statement by statement and look for possible conflicts with the Western sources. "The Tallinn offensive of the Leningrad Front forces on September 17-26 drove the fascists out of Estonian mainland". Knowing that by fascists, the Soviet sources mean Nazi German forces, and the term 'liberated' implies a POV and needs to be replaced with a neutral term like 'taken', the statement hardly conflicts any Western views I'm aware of. "Tallinn was liberated on September 22, Pärnu and Viljandi on September 23, Haapsalu on September 24." Replacing the the term 'liberated' again, the hardly conflicts any available Western sources. I agree, the Soviet view represented by Gustav Naan lacks the fact that units of the Leningrad Front clashed with the Estonian patriots. It appears, you claim, the Soviet historiography deliberately ignores the facts. While I actually agree with you, adding a statement like "The Soviet historiography as presented by Gustav Naan deliberately ignores the fact that the Soviet forces fought Estonian patriots during the Tallinn Offensive," is your own research until you provide a source which discusses the alleged conflict. --Erikupoeg (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Since it is not my intention to spell out and cite the entire Soviet history that has been written on the subject, the one thing I can point out that you're referring only to 2 sentences out of the current source. Other than that, suggesting that spelling out conflicting verifiable perspectives pr WP:YESPOV could be considered WP:OR doesn't have any bases. In fact it would be much easier to claim that by putting together the Western and Soviet sources you have reached a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. So I'd say lets drop the wikilawyering. In case the article stays stable, again, I have no reason to return to this and the synthesis of the sources by you is fine by me until such approach is not going to cause problems again like evident by the edits made by Wilder.--Termer (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to get touchy. The only Soviet source] you've provided so far covers the Tallinn Offensive in three sentences. Obviously I cannot get your idea if you keep discussing a ghost Soviet historiography without providing sources. Based on the book of Gustav Naan, the Soviet historiography appears not going into details about the Tallinn Offensive. Only in a detailed view, events like clashes with the national Estonian units come out. The broad perspective presented by the Soviet historiography does not contradict any Western sources on the same time-scale. If there are any other major Soviet sources on the matter, I'd be glad to discuss them. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Termer has expressed hope that the current version remains stable. I hope so, too. Thus, right now I see no reason to waste one's effort on further arguments here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there still is an argument, the current title doesn't adequately describe the content any more. In response to Erikupoeg The only Soviet source you've provided so far covers the Tallinn Offensive in three sentences. Well, please let me point out that it's the only source available that speaks about Tallinn Offensive. But since the article is clearly expanded beyond what the source has to say about the subject, the article needs to be renamed accordingly. Lets say either the Battle of Tallinn (1944) or whatever suitable title that would match the content of this article.--Termer (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of Soviet sources in Russian and Estonian about Tallinn Offensive. For the sake of verifiabilty, the current article prefers the sources in English. There is no substantial argument between the Western and the Soviet sources. Let's take the definitive source, the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia:"Таллинская операция 1944, наступление войск Ленинградского фронта и сил Краснознамённого Балтийского флота с целью освобождения Эстонской ССР и её столицы Таллина 17-26 сентября во время Великой Отечественной войны 1941-45;", the translation being more or less:"Tallinn Operation 1944, offensive of the forces of Leningrad Front and Red-Banner Baltic Fleet aimed at the liberation of Estonian SSR and her capital Tallinn on 17-26 September during the Great Patriotic War". The article in its current form fits the temporal scope (the events of 17-26 September), geographic (the territory which the Soviet Union considered as Estonian SSR), and operational scope (offensive operations of the forces of Leningrad Front against what the Red Army considered as "fascists"). What appears to be the problem?

P.S. Battle of Tallinn 1944 would be more or less own research in setting the scope of a battle and an article. --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'd expect it to make a difference but just in case, please let me point out that if you WP:VERIFY anything like you do above, then the article should say what the source says. Which it doesn't.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tallinn Offensive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dodo19 (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, were to begin?

1. Well-written?

a) the prose is neither clear nor grammatically correct

Frankly, article is in desperate need of proof reading and copy editing. Some sentences just don't make sense, others are so long, you have to read them several times to understand their meaning. If you're lucky.

• Care to bring any examples? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How about the lead section? First sentence: can an offensive capture anything? Wasn't it the Red Army. As I understand, the Tallinn offensive was a strategic operation by the Red Army's Leningrad Front against German forces of Army Group North in Estonia. Why not say so? Next: on refers to a single day, from Xy till Yx would be more appropriate, for the operation lasted several days. Then: Operation Aster, as I understand, was the German evacuation of Estonia, thus it was a reaction to the offensive, not vice versa. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have corrected it now at my best abilities. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have done some additional copy edits as well. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate

There are a hell of a lot of sources mentioned , most of them seem to fall under WP:RS. But I am more worried about the sources not mentioned. I do not have access to Hiio's article at the moment, but Mitcham is misquoted each and every time.

• You might want to be more concrete on which sources are not mentioned. The editor who inserted the Mitcham's citations appears to be inactive now. If you have access to the book, it would be good to know, what is incorrectly cited. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was wondering whether Volume VIII of Germany and the Second World War would already be available, but unfortunately not. There is a chapter on the retreat from Estonia from the German perspective (in the German edition). Apart from that, you can access Mitcham on Google book search. But for the Soviet view I would recommend John Erickson's The Road to Berlin, from page 413. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think I get access to Erickson. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(c) it might contain original research

It refers to unpublished data from the Estonian Archive in Lakewood, NJ which sounds pretty much like OR to me.

• I removed the citation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about Estonia is actually incorrect. The Soviet troops might have had plans to drive Nazis out of Estonia, but operation Aster had in mind the evacuation of german troops ONLY from Estonian continental areas. Islands Saaremaa and Hiiumaa remained under control of Germany. Melilac (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

(a) it does not addresses the main aspects of the topic

This is the German evacuation of Estonia we are talking, not the history of a short-lifed Estonian government. What were the Soviet intentions (apart from conquering Estonia)? What were the German plans? What were the strategic implications?

• The short-lived government is a notable event in direct connection with the campaign. The Stavka was extremely secretive about its plans, so the statement in the lead: "The Soviet Leningrad Front and the Baltic Fleet attempted to capture of Estonia and its capital Tallinn from the German Army Detachment "Narwa" and the pro-independence Estonian units," is pretty much all we can find in second-hand sources. We also know that with Finland shifting to the Soviet side and thus opening the Baltic Sea to the Baltic fleet, Tallinn lost its strategical importance (while it had some propagandistic importance as the capital of an SSR), so there is not much to tell about the implications. We know more about German plans, but a detailed description of them would make the article biased next to the little we know about the Soviet plans.
  • I don't see a problem of bias, if that is what we know - or can know. It wouldn't make sense not to include information on one side, because we don't have an equal amount on the other side. German intentions (i.e. Hitler's) were to defend the Baltic states to the last man, the General Staff meanwhile prepared plan for evacuation. The Soviet intentions were to do to Army Group North what they had done to Army Group Center before. That's all part of the strategic implications of the Soviet offensive. Finland e.g. is not mentioned at all.--Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll write the German objectives section, but I still need a source for more detail in Soviet intentions. Finland had nothing to do with the campaign. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(b) it does not stay focused on the topic but is going into unnecessary detail

Platoon-sized operations are not really of any interest when an army group is effectively abandoning a whole sector of the front.

• The Soviet historiography considered the conquest of Tallinn notable enough to warrant a monument to the men perished in the battles with every one of the names carved on a separate stone. The soldiers and the battles have received great attention in connection with the relocation of the monument and the ashes of the soldiers in 2007. However, I agree, it is not due to the military importance of the operations but the political significance attributed to it by the Soviet propaganda, continued by the Russian government. I just felt if the article completely omitted the battles it would be ignoring a notable event. I may have been wrong. I have now deleted information on single platoon-sized battles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not make it a separate article then? But if you switch the perspective from an army detachment to a platoon, it's getting a bit confusing. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• As I said, I don't feel they should be there and I have deleted the info on the battles. Is it OK? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

The article is certainly not anti-Estonian. Apart from that, I don't know.

• As a reviewer, I guess you will have to make up your mind eventually. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Eventually --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is happening, it has been over a month since the last comment on this review page? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA failed

I have failed the article today, because it does not meet the broad coverage criteria. Most notably Operation Aster, the German evacuation of Estonia is covered merely in a few sentences. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The review is perhaps the most inadequate statement I've come across on Wikipedia. Operation Aster was the evacuation of the Army Group North from mainland Estonia. The design of the operation is outlined in detail ("German objectives"). The conduct ("Operations") is comprehensively described (I could count more than twenty sentences considering the German operations; how on earth could you miss these to get "merely a few sentences"?) and so are the outcomes ("Outcomes"). If you are unhappy about the article then better present the real causes. Otherwise this is going for a reassessment. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions from GAN

This article and Tartu Offensive share lengthy "Aftermath" sections, but purely military consequences are reduced to a single line. Listing subsequent operations does not help: war is not merely a succession of operations. I'd recommend:

• Go back to the beginning (Soviet objectives...) and identify the place of each operation in overall strategic plan. As they were intended to be (oh well, we all know that war histories are distorted, so it's really as presented in post-war public history). What was the value of Tallinn offensive in overall plan - getting a bridgehead for a further leap? Destruction of significant manpower? Access to harbours and straits and similar naval gains? Getting political leverage over Sir Winston? Relieving threat of German flank maneuver? etc.
• Identify operational Soviet objectives: exact target lines, target dates and target enemy units slated for destruction.
• Did the operation meet its objectives, literally? War is not just grabbing territory. Which targets were failed? We know from the article that the Germans managed to pull out (again), and that they quite quickly arranged evac by sea. But it's buried inside a long block of text, as if it was not a significant failure. Maybe it wasn't.
• How did the gains and failures of this particular operation influence subsequent action? (as an example, consider the case of how the Courland Pocket influenced Soviet and German action of 1945).

I'd also recommend researching deeper into Operation Alster (there's a pretty scary analogy to Soviet 1941 evacuation from Tallinn). Soviet map has "German Navy" printed in bold face, but then we know that by this time their surface navy was reduced to scrap. German art of withdrawal under fire deserves more attention.

NVO (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any secondary sources outlining the Soviet plans, targets or intentions. The objective of the operation is commonly described as liberation of Tallinn, the capital of Estonian SSR, no further. The rest, even if it is presented as the design, only presents a detailed account of the allocation of the enemy forces mixed with how the operation actually worked out. No mention of any details of the original design. After Finland shifted to the Soviet in early September, Estonia apparently became a strategical dead end, because the Baltic Fleet was no longer restricted from using the Gulf of Finland to reach the Baltic proper safely. At least there is no talk of further strategical implications. With the Cold War, the conquest of Estonia became a highly sensitive topic and the archives of the Red Army are still closed to non-Russian researchers.

As for the the Operation "Aster", it was designed after the landing of the 2nd Shock Army to the Emajõgi Front, which made the Soviet intentions pretty obvious. Hence it was imposed by the anticipation of the offensive and discussing it before the Operations section would make it look like an independent design. The plan is well known but, given the lack of detail of the Soviet intentions, I did not include it to avoid a bias towards the German side. However, I cannot see a need for it, as it was conducted generally according to the plan with all of the major objectives reached (so I don't know what you mean by analogy to the Soviet evacuation of Tallinn. This has been outlined in two paras: The defence decelerated the 3rd Baltic front enough for the Army Detachment "Narwa" to escape from Estonia in an operation codenamed "Aster". A naval force under Vice-Admiral Theodor Burchardi began evacuating elements of the German formations along with some civilians on 17 September. The headquarters prepared a detailed plan to leave the positions at the Narva front on the night of 18-19 September. The III (Germanic) SS Panzer Corps and the 11th Infantry Division abandoned their positions, unbeknownst to the Soviet 8th Army. The Soviet forces began advancing in the early morning.[3] Within six days, around 50,000 troops, 20,000 civilians and 1,000 prisoners of war had been removed from Estonia.[1] The remaining elements of the Army Group North withdrew to Latvia. and By the time of the arrival of the advance 8th Rifle Corps units to Tallinn on early 22 September, German troops had practically abandoned the city. The last German unit to leave Tallinn that morning was the 531st Navy Artillery Battalion. Before embarkation, all stationary artillery and armamaments, special equipment, guns that could not be evacuated, ammunition, the telephone exchange, the radio broadcast house, locomotives and railroad cars, and the railway were destroyed. The Tallinn electricity power plant was fired upon from the sea and the Old City Harbour was destroyed. The retreating German units had no combat contact with the Red Army in Tallinn.[3] Considering the overall length of the Operations section, further detail would bias it towards German sympathy.

I don't understand the Courland Pocket example. That article does not mention influence on subsequent action or am I missing something? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more useful material might be found here (from page 272). --Dodo19 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, but the only material from the book that is not already there in the article, is simply false. There was no slow advance in the second half of September when the 2nd Shock Army gained 200km in five days. Not to mention the nonexistent sandy plains in central Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

However, on the second look, in the midst of the errors, I did find some useful material on the outcomes of the operation. I have added that.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tallinn Offensive/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Needs a copyedit by a native English-speaker. Actions of pro-independence forces in Tallinn not significant enough for the lead; best left in main body.

I have done another round of copy edits and found little that needed improvement. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It's better than it was; nonetheless, there are several pieces of infelicitious prose that I've marked with awkward tags.

Thank you for making it clearer which sections needed work. Jaan and I have done more edits. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Many citations lack page numbers.

   Page numbers still needed for #s 2, 7, 14, 15--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   The link for citation 15 is dead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   All that's left are the page #s for cite #7

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Need to discuss strengths of 8th Army and III. SS-Panzer Corps. In the Strength section of the infobox what weapon is "in hundreds"? What do you mean by pro-democracy Estonian troops? Pro-Soviet, pro-independence? If the latter then there were rather more than a few hundred.

   B. Focused:

   Clarify that III. SS-Panzer Corps and 11th Infantry Division, I presume, left by sea. How did the Soviet Navy support the attack? It's mentioned in the lede, but it obviously didn't do its job very well because the Germans managed to escape by sea. Tieke's history of III SS-Panzer Corps, Tragedy of the Faithful might be of some use. And what about Erickson's Road to Berlin?

   Why is 2nd Shock Army considered elite?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now made an effort towards addressing the issues. The sources have absolutely no mention of the Soviet Baltic Fleet participating in the operation. It appears, the only trouble the German flotillas got from the Soviets was aerial bombardment. Probably there was no participation from the Soviet navy, possibly because it was unable to pass the heavy minefields across the Gulf of Finland. Let me know, if there is anything else. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. 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:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'd recommend separating the bibliography out from the footnotes, which could be reduced to "author, p. #", because you have a mixture of full and short-form citations, which looks bad.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this review? Little has been added here in the past month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All that's needed is some page numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• WWII. Tallinn Offensive.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)