Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Iskra

Operation Iskra

I would like some advice on improvements to this article. It seems it is weak in grammar and has problems with citations, and I think with some style improvements I could get it to GA. D2306 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Hi, I have the following suggestions:

the first paragraph in the Background section is completely uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
the first paragraph in the German Preparations section is uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
in the Soviet Preparations section, this needs a citation: "This meant recapturing the "bottleneck" and opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor to Leningrad. After that, the two fronts were to rest for 10 days and resume the offensive southward in further operations.";Done
the "German Preparations" and "Soviet Preparations" section headers are incorrectly capitalised. Per MOS:HEAD they should be "German preparations" and "Soviet preparations" as they are not proper nouns;Done
in the Front line stablises section, this needs a citation "There was no changes in the front line after January 21. The Soviet forces were unable to advance any further and started fortifying the area the thwart any German at reestablishing the blockade. The operation officially ended on January 30.";Done
in the Front line stablises section, this is grammatically incorrect "There was no changes in the front...". It should be "There were no changes...";Done
in the Aftermath, this needs a citation: "However the city was still subject to at least a partial siege, as well as air and artillery bombardment, until the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive broke through the German lines, lifting the siege completely in January 1944";Done
Citation # 6 "p.128, Glantz" is a different format to the others which use Author then page numbers. These should be the same format;Done
the three columns for the References is probably too many in my opinion, one would be fine given that there are only six works, but if it is required two would be okay;Done
the Further reading section should be formatted so that it is presented in the same style as the References section;Done
the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;Done
the citations with page ranges should probably be "pp." rather than just "p." as that is usually used to denote a single page.Done AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Thanks for the advice.D2306 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC);[reply]
- Is the article B-class now? D2306 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]