Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Prokhorovka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kirill Lokshin (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Prokhorovka

[edit]
Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk)

Battle of Prokhorovka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as a step before WP:FAC. It passed GA review in 2013 and has been buffed up even more ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have a couple of minor comments (unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to do full review at this stage, sorry): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • the Harv referencing script is identifying quite a few "harv" errors. I've fixed one for you, but can you please take a look at the rest? (If you install the script, you will see the errors identified in red in the References section);
I've looked into installing the script, but it's proving not to be a one-minute job. In the meantime, I removed a reference that was never used in-text. Did that fix it? EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that helped. I've done the others now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a couple of paragraphs/sentences marked with a "citation needed" tag, which should be rectified;
One of the cn tags is because of an editor that argues the preceding two sources, together with the other three supporting sources, are flawed; although it's been a few days now and sources are yet to be provided. The other has always been in the article, hiding away under other citations. I'm still looking through the five sources I have access to, but so far have found nothing. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. All the citation needed tags have been fixed (citations found or unsourced content removed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in addition, this appears to be unreferenced: "with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties". Could a citation be added for this?
It's just a simple summation of the cited numbers, and therefore technically an original research. I'll delete it if necessary. EyeTruth (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for English variation. For instance, currently it appears to use a mix of US and British spellings, for instance "defense" and "kilometers" (US), but also "defence", "kilometres", and "armour" (British). Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent;
I will start changing them to British spellings. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to come back later and do a more thorough review once I've had a look through some of my books at home. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Achtung-Panzer and Lost Victories works in the Further reading section?
I couldn't find any ISBN for the original versions of the books. Maybe it's because they were written before ISBN was introduced. EyeTruth (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what I could find from worldcat.org. If ISBNs aren't available, there will generally be an OCLC. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • please include a translation of the title of the Russian works in the Further reading and External link section. This can be done using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite book and cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all the external links. EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one in the Further reading left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that one. I'll correct it asap. I've just been preoccupied with checking every passage in the article to make sure it goes along with what their cited sources say. And in the case where I can't find access to a source, I compare the text against the other sources I have. I've checked over 80% of the article already. EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, I've run through the article and copy edited it a bit. It could still potentially use another set of eyes prior to FAC, though. That said, I found the second half of the second paragraph in the lead a little awkward/abrupt: (the bit starting from "The German offensive was conducted by three armies"). I wonder if you could have a play with it to see if it can be smoothed out a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could mention the third army? It was excluded because they have no connection to the battle, and were deployed hundreds of kilometres away. Well, their early failure (i.e. stalling on the third day) put a lot of pressure on the German forces that took part in this battle, since they became the only hope for Citadel to succeed. But that is not mentioned in this article, but is already in the Battle of Kursk article. What do you think if it reads like this: "The German offensive was conducted by three armies: In the southern side...." EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes I think the issue is that it talks about three armies then only really seems to mention one (the 4th). My suggestion to resolve this is to just remove the "The German offensive was conducted by three armies" sentence altogether. I think also the wording "In the southern side" is a bit inelegant. "On the southern side..." might be smoother, but I think you need to also define that a bit more. For instance, in/on the southern side of what? Anyway, good work on your changes so far. I will probably not be very active for the next five days or so (I might log in occasionally), but work will limit my time, so I will leave the article sit for a bit. I see that there are some issues being hashed out on the talk page, too. Ideally these should be resolved, and the article stable, prior to FAC. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I have incorporated these suggestions. And yes, the article will be stable, hopefully, by the time it's done taking these A-Class critiques. EyeTruth (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert, I've incorporated all of your suggestions; and content-wise the article is set, unless there will be new suggestions on here. Also the discussion on the article's talkpage has stabilized. Do you have new suggestions for the article? EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, some have locations of publishing, and some don't. Of those that have them, some include state locations and some don't (e.g compare "Lawrence: University of Kansas Press" with "Mechanicsburg, PA").
 Addressed. City and country listed for all the locations, in addition to other corrections for locations. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of your citations are a little hard to read because of the notes beside them, I suggest removing the notes from the citation and putting them in the dedicated Notes section. E.g. this is a little confusing: "Zetterling & Frankson 2000, pp. 48, 105–106, 793 tanks and 57 self-propelled guns." (the eye has trouble initially working out that it is 793 tanks, not p. 793) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Addressed. Added "reports" at the beginning of those notes, instead of converting them all to harvntxt. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size slightly
 Addressed. Not needed anymore, as explained below. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kursk_south.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
 Addressed. It had no source, but itself. And on a closer look, the info it presents is wrong. The map has been removed from the article. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rotmistrov.jpg: the given licensing tag requires publication of the image before 1951 and death of the creator - can you provide evidence of both of those?
The permission says it's currently in the public domain of the U.S. and Ukraine. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The permission says "it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date". If you can't demonstrate that the two "because" conditions are true, then the tag is not valid here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is probably an official state-portrait of Pavel Rotmistrov (identical in style and form to other known state-portraits of Soviet commanders), and it was most likely taken before 1945 as he doesn't have his Order of Kutuzov medal (awarded in 1943) in that portrait. Like all the other state-portraits of Soviet commanders, the official creator would be the Soviet state. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Addressed. The image has been removed. But the permission notes that "Russia jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject." The image is very related to the subject of that section in the article that it was in. Don't you think that exempts it from constituting as infringement in this case? EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not an accurate interpretation of that note. "the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" is intended to account for cases where the 3D work is in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main subject of the image. For example, if I took a picture of my sister on the street, my sister would be the main subject and the buildings in the background would be accessory - that image would not be infringement. But where the work is the main subject of the image, it's infringing, whether it's relevant to the article or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected so. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, do you have more suggestions? Also about Rotmistrov's image, I can't prove that the particular person that snapped the photograph died before 1951. I highly doubt the individual is known, which satisfies the licence criterion. But the picture was most likely taken before 1945. Personally, what do you think, does the picture fall short of the minimum criteria? BTW, are there any other things regarding images (or any other aspect of the article) that you think requires some scrutiny? EyeTruth (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's not so much when it was taken but rather when it was published that is important here, and without information about that we can't say that the current licensing tag applies. It's possible another one might, but offhand I don't know of one as many others also rely on publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when it was published, but what if it was never published in the traditional sense, just like many photos from archives. I did a little digging and here is what I found. In 2007, the uploader also uploaded another image along side this one, both from this site (now broken), with their dates of release. In 2010, that other image, along with some other image, were both put up for deletion by another editor on the grounds that there are no proofs that the authors died more than 70 years ago. But the request was turned down because they were released before the date prescribed by the licence tag. All the discussion happened for only one of the images, and was not repeated for the other, but both were kept and not deleted. We're scrutinizing the image here entirely because we automatically distrusted the information the uploader provided for the image, but after this little digging I'm dropping my automatic distrust as there are no reasons to doubt the uploader. My guess is that the now broken link most likely had the information on the release dates that the uploader included in the file's description. But you have much more experience with image stuff, and since I hope to take this article for other higher assessments, I'll like to know what you personally suggest? Remove it or keep it? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this table - if it was never published and authorship is unknown, then copyright persists until 120 years after creation. The situation with that other image is bit different in that it uses Russian rather than Ukrainian copyright law, although the deletion debate was...substandard. But if we can't recover the source, and we don't know anything more about authorship or publication, you'll probably need to either remove the image or try for a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll have to start a discussion on the file's talkpage at Commons before adding a fair-use tag, right? I'm not very conversant with WP's fair-use claim, but I'll give it a shot, and if it fails I will just remove the image and probably request a deletion too. EyeTruth (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to try for fair use you'll need to upload locally instead - Commons doesn't permit fair-use claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. File:Rotmistrov portrait WWII.jpg. Image in the article has also been updated. I also added a brief explanation in the file's talkpage, so now I'll wait and see. First time trying this, fingers crossed. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other things regarding images, or any other aspect of the article, that you think requires some more work? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I've replaced "subsequently" (but not subsequent) by "later" throughout, because that seems to be the most common meaning in history articles on Wikipedia. If something else was meant, please fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be written in BritEng. There are some -ize endings that may or may not be okay (in proper nouns). I first thought the article was in AmEng ... I don't remember why, there may be AmEng spellings somewhere.
 Done. "ize" changed to "ise" where appropriate. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The VIII Fliegerkorps was to make their": Go with singular (was) or plural (their), not both. Since this is BritEng, plural is more common.
 Addressed. Changed to singular. All other units in the article are singular. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soviet", etc.: Per WP:HEADING, section and subsection headings are noun phrases, not adjectives.
 Done. Changed to descriptive noun phrases. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedits. EyeTruth (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. The dead link has been removed, and it didn't need to be there in the first place. EyeTruth (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Prokhorovka&oldid=679771622"