Talk:Nikopol–Krivoi Rog offensive/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 06:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary note

 * Very impressive submission, thank you. I will try to go through each sections thoroughly without prejudice to identify any potential concerns before running the criteria checklist. Alex Shih (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

 * I have found no concerns. The lede is well written and covers the scope of the operation.

Infobox

 * The infobox looks fine also. German casualties is sourced to Erickson's 1999 edition; is it possible to use the 2015 edition instead? The rationale being it's more accessible. Just a minor thought, was going to assume good faith for offline sources anyway. Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2015 edition does not have page numbers in the online preview, and I don't have paper copies of these books. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thank you for the prompt replies. Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Background

 * No concerns.

Prelude

 * ...towards an attack on Kirovograd: I find it slightly strange to pipe the "attack" here to a red link, if there is no immediate plan to create an article on Kirovograd Offensive.
 * The offensive was somewhat important and I will probably create it within a month or so. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I guess my main point is that seeing a red link for the word "attack" just doesn't look right, although it's relatively minor. I have some alternatives in mind for the time being, but they don't have to be accepted, just my thoughts. 1) Pipe the link to Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive (German Wikipedia way) 2) Rephrase it to "towards Kirovograd Offensive" 3) Add a cross-wiki link like (ru:Кировоградская наступательная операция) . Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What are Shock armies? I tried to find relevant information in 5th Shock Army and Armies of the Soviet Army, but couldn't find any information. I think it would be helpful to have this explained somewhere (doesn't have to be in this article), as 5th Shock was highly involved in this operation, and as a reader I did not understand the meaning of the term, as it doesn't appear to be commonly used in other military.
 * Shock armies were specially reinforced field armies used for major attacks. They had more men and equipment than other armies. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Where can this be mentioned? Or if you think it's unnecessary, I'll be fine with it. Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * However, for this specific operation, 5th Shock Army was not stronger in terms of divisions than other armies, and the 8th Guards Army had the most divisions in the offensive. Kges1901 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of forces

 * Can we integrate something like "For the German defenders..." somewhere in this paragraph? I think this would clarify the section better as the name of Karl-Adolf Hollidt was only mentioned once briefly at this point.
 * Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Offensive

 * I find it slightly difficult to follow military units from different sides in this section, at least from the perspective of a casual reader unfamiliar with these units. For instance, it took me a while to realize which side the capturing 85 soldiers was referring to. Can this sentence be clarified better? Perhaps something like "inserted into the Russian breakthrough" followed by "the 4th Guards engaged the retreating German 123rd Infantry Division and captured 85 soldiers in the process before reaching Kamenka and Sholokhovo". Just a thought.
 * Rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Around this time the rest of the two divisions launched the attack, and the city was captured by 8:00.: There may be an inconsistency here. In the lede, it was stated that Apostolovo was captured on 4 February, yet in this sentence it implies that the city, assuming it's Apostolovo, fell on 5 February instead.
 * Corrected the lead, probably my typo. Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * four German infantry divisions and two Panzer divisions launched: Are these two Panzer divisions the 9th and the 24th mentioned in the previous sentence, or are they different divisions? Right now it's ambiguous I think.
 * Rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Exploiting weak points: I don't quite understand, how was this done? The Russian 82nd, 6th and 34th Rifle Corps combined reached northeastern, eastern, and southeastern side of the city. As German defense were concentrated in the east side of the city accordingly, it should be explained how the "weak points" were exploited.
 * Clarified. Kges1901 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * I am assuming there is no German documents about the casualties of this operation?
 * The figures cited by the Soviet history may actually be from German documents as the Soviets did capture some German documents at the end of the war. But German losses are substantially lower (definitely not 40k) according to their ten day reports here.Kges1901 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

 * That's about it from me for now. Looking forward to hearing from you. Once my concerns are addressed, I will do the checklist and pass the article for GA. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt and diligent replies and addressing of the concerns. I thoroughly enjoyed the reading, and will do the checklist later tonight. Alex Shih (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ✔️ Well written: After reading through each section several times, I think it's safe to say that the article is well written and consistent with the style guide. It's detailed yet engaging at the same time.
 * 2) ✔️ Verfiable: every paragraph is appropriately referenced, and every claim that I can identity have been supported by inline citations.
 * 3) ✔️ Broad in its coverage: The coverage is broad enough for the scope of this operation.
 * 4) ✔️ Neutrality: The article is consistently written in a neutral manner, using sources published by both German and Russian historians along with supporting English sources.
 * 5) ✔️ Stable: There have been minimal changes to this article (2, to be exact) since it was expand on November 5. Partially due to low traffic, but the article is certainly stable.
 * 6) ✔️ Images: With a total of 5 images and 1 map all relevant to the topic, the article is well illustrated. The map was very helpful for making sense out of the chronology of events in the offensive. I am passing this article as a Good Article based on the criteria. Thank you again, Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)