Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Arctic Fox/archive1

Operation Arctic Fox

I have expanded this article from stub to the current state with several iterations over the years and think its in a pretty good shape now. I want to bring this article to GA, but I never put an article through this process. Therefore I would appreciate some feedback if there are some major problems left which could prevent that. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Should use a consistent variety of English
• Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
• Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?
• Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
• Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
• The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild
• "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
• File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?
• Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description
• File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details
• Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author
• Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I tried to address the issues raised, but I have some questions remaining if you dont mind. Below all your remarks and my actions:

I addressed the following points in the article:

• Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
• Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?

C: It is already in the article in prose as well as in the infobox. So I deleted this section.

• Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
• Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
• "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
• Should use a consistent variety of English

C: I tried to address this point and changed to British English where I found American terms/spellings.

• Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading.
• Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description

C: I added some more information. This map was created by me. Its not based on an existing map, its an compilation/combination of various maps and written informations from the 2 sources I added into the description.

My Questions:

• Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author

I understand. However in the book it is stated that this particular author is the main author of the section where the citation is coming from. Should I still change it to the first author of the general volume?

No, in that case you should change the full citation to specify this particular section that you are citing - is it a chapter...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a chapter credited to Ueberschär. He wrote a large chapter about the German-Finnish War effort, which has a sub-chapter about Operation Arctic Fox. How should a citation look like in that case? Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ueberschär, Gerd R. (1983). "Name of chapter on Operation Arctic Fox". In Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (eds.). Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion [Attack on the Soviet Union]. Germany and the Second World War (in German). Vol. IV. Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. pp. 800–900. ISBN 3421060983.

Ahh ok, I understand now where you are coming from. I thought I have to change the actual referencing, not the book. I will add the correct book citation and the correct image sourcing at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for your help. Dead Mary (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?

I didn't uploaded the picture. I think it would be point 3 or 4 (they are basically the same). The picture seems to circulate exclusively in the Russian internet as well as in Russian publications. I also couldn't find it in the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), so it seems to not have been published in Germany. I therefore would conclude it is a picture published in Russia without the author known, perhaps captured from a German soldier, making it free according to point 3/4. Do you think it is ok to keep the picture in the article or should it be replaced?

For either of those to apply, the work would need to have been published, not just created, before 1946 - do we know that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well we dont really know anything I guess. I will replace the picture with a similar one to be more safe. Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details

The picture is self created by the author who uploaded it. It looks pretty legitimate. Therefore I don't know how to proceed, it was uploaded about 10 years ago.

Can you add sources to support the information conveyed by that image? Nikkimaria (talk)

Yes, I will do that.Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild

Ok, I understand. I have a general questions left regarding that topic: What do generally think of the article, especially my prose? I have difficulties to assess whether my general writing style is appropriate or if it is somehow completely off. English is not my native language. I think I have reasonable skills to articulate myself properly, but writing good articles is obviously a different matter.

Your writing is quite good for a non-native speaker, but there are some errors or instances where flow is interrupted - that is why I suggest Guild involvement, as they're generally quite good at addressing these types of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will put it up at the GoC Guild. Thank you for your review! Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you can answer my remaining questions. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)