Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Battle of Smolensk (1943)
Self-nom. An article about an epic WWII battle, hiding in the shade of Kursk salient :) Good length, pictures, formatting and inline citations. Has been peer reviewed by MILHIST project.

Oh, and that is the first FAC I nominate, so don't bite the newcomer please :)) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent article; all issues raised during the peer review have been addressed. Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article but some above concerns by Worldtraveller need to be adressed. - Tutmosis 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent work - interesting and very readable. Some minor problems need fixing before I can support this nomination; I've done a little bit of work myself but things I haven't done include
 * Overlinking, e.g. road network - be careful only to link to relevant subjects. In this case, neither link leads the reader to anything relevant to the article.  There are other examples.  Also, some words are linked several times - it's only necessary to link the first appearance of a word. - Adressed to a reasonable extent. I know i'm overlinking, but in this case, multi-links to places and rivers and so on... seem necessary, because people are usually not familiar with Russian geography. But I removed any non-relevant ilinks... :)
 * Linking style as well - you have, for example, After a rain, quite common during the Russian summer, most of them were covered with mud - it would be much better to link transparently to the word Rasputitsa, explainin what it is at the same time. -- Corrected, the only example remaining is anti-aircraft warfare, which I think is quite OK to link as anti-aircraft defense. Correct me if I'm wrong :) 
 * Yeah, that's fine - it's just using a piped link with text that doesn't look at all like the article title you're linking to that's not very desirable. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Language issues - I have rectified a lot of minor grammatical problems and spelling mistakes, but more might remain, so I'd recommend a thorough read through.  -- I reread the article, but that's where my English hits the wall... :( Your help is welcome...
 * I've been through it more thoroughly, and fixed up all the nitpicking minor things I could find. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As ordered by the Stavka - Stavka is not previously explained.  -- Done.
 * as general M.M Popov wrote in one of his articles - this wording appears to endorse a viewpoint. Also, it's not explained who M.M. Popov is, or why his articles are relevant.  It would be better here to write what he said in your own words, then cite him as a reference.  -- Done.
 * What was General Kurt von Tippelskirch's involvement with the battle? This needs to be explained.  -- Explained.
 * 'Aftermath' says the total advance was 200-250km; immediately above, it says it was 100 to 180 km.  -- Clarified: 100-180 is advance during 3rd stage, 200-250 is overall advance.
 * It's a little bit weak at the end. A brief mention with a couple of links about what happened after this battle would be really good. I added a last paragraph about what happened next in the northern part of the Soviet-German front (Leningrad counteroffensive and Operation Bagration in 1944). If you feel more details would be necessary about a particular subject, please say so :) 
 * Otherwise, excellent work - hope to see many more such articles from you! Worldtraveller 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Brilliant stuff - I enthusiastically support this now. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support but I have some problems with part of the prose. These sentences caught my eye:


 * "By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired and depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev, which were still held by the Wehrmacht, and on 2nd October, the Smolensk operation was over." - Seems like a run on.  -- Sentence changed by Worldtraveller just before :) What would you suggest?

I would write...."By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired, depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev-still held by the Wehrmacht-before the Smolensk operation ended on October 2nd."UberCryxic 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for messing that up when I was trying to fix it :) Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Subsequent attacks by Armored and Cavalry forces of the 6th Guards Cavalry Corps had no further effect and resulted in important casualties because of heavy German defenses, leading to a stalemate." - People realize what you're saying here, but I suggest replacing the word "important" with something else, like "heavy" or "significant."  -- Corrected.


 * "Thus, both operations were a part of the same offensive." - "Thus" isn't needed. Just say "Both..." and get on with it. Same thing with....  -- Corrected.


 * "Finally, the forward edge of the battle area was protected by three lines of barbed wire and a solid wall of minefields." - "Finally" not needed.  -- Corrected.


 * Otherwise, it was a very good article. Worthy of FA.UberCryxic 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- All issues raised above were corrected or at least attempted to be corrected. My remarks are in red above. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple minor issues: Make sure & nbsp; precedes abbreviated units (I think I've done most of them) to prevent line breaking, and format repeated inline references so that the actual text of the reference only appears the first time, and future identical references carry the number first used (saves space in your notes section). Also, check for agreement&mdash;I noticed that the Geography section switches between past and present tense. Other than these minor issues, however, very nice work. --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * IRT tenses in Geography section: corrected. :)
 * IRT references: I did not know it was possible... Sorry I'm just a dumb newcomer and don't know wiki scripting very well... :( -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. But actually, let me suggest referencing like I used on shielded metal arc welding&mdash;have a references section where you list the books, and then a notes section where you list just the author or title keyword and the page number. --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be sure to consider it. However, I don't think it is an obstacle to FA (or am I mistaken?). I think than more important style matters should be dealt with first... :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * References changed to short form (with 1st occurrence in full) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Should "second" or "battle" or both or neither (of Second battle of Smolensk) be capitalized? In Second Battle of Bull Run, both are capitalized. AndyZ t 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was capitalized in the infobox, so I did so in the lead as well. Maybe it will be changed but at least it is logical for the moment :) ... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nicely written but needs a touch more work.
 * #Needs another round of proofreading and copyediting for grammar and spelling. I think it's about done by a lot of people (kudos to them all :)
 * Some vernacular, e.g. This direction, which was the Stavka's biggest headache since 1941, was finally secured. I'm sorry I don't get it...
 * "Biggest headache" is something you would use in a conversation but it's too informal for an encyclopedia. There are a few other places where I felt the tone was like that (again, a proofread would help). - Emt147 Burninate!  15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Corrected, and I assume proofread is quite OK by now... :)
 * I would like to see a mention of notable equipment (guns, tanks, aircraft, etc.) used, if any.
 * #The lead needs to provide a better summary of the article. Lead Expanded
 * #The two commanders (?) in the lead should have ranks preceding their names. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Done
 * Good points, I'll see what I can do. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally support, as this is a very good article on an important subject that thus far has seen little treatment in the relevant literature in the west. A few minor points that I think should be addressed:
 * Exact time of the attack, attack procedure (e.g. preliminary bombardment, etc.) for the first stage Added
 * German reserves shifted up from the Orel region – a bit more detail? Added
 * Soviet Fronts (Front should always be capitalised and they should be wiki-linked). In general I think capitalisation needs to be checked. Checked I think...
 * I think a generic map of the region with all the placenames would be most helpful. Andreas 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Added a general plan to help with the text.


 * Support as the criticism seems to have been addressed. We need more military FAs on subjects other than Polish military history. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One more comment - the picture used in the infobox looks to me as if it is from the occupation of Smolensk in 1941, not the liberation. The tank is a T26, a model which was not in service anymore - on its turret a direction indicator for a German tank formation is drawn. The truck also looks distinctly German. Together I should think this means the picture is from 1941. Andreas
 * Remember that they did not clean the streets after the 1941 mess (that's why the tank has signposts on it). And the city was captured in one night too, so they had no time to evacuate. As for the signposts, sure they were there before they were removed (look at the photo at Battle of Budapest.
 * In short, I'm not sure. But what we could do is swap this one with one of the two pics in the aftermath section... What do you think??? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if they left the tank wreck in situ for two years, but stranger things have happened. More importantly though, the soldier on the truck looks more like wearing a German uniform to me. None of this is conclusive by any means, but I'd change it for one of the later pictures. Andreas 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pick the one you would like :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go for the one with the civilians, which is currently the last one. Just switch them and caption the other one 'Smolensk during the war', or sumfink. Andreas 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * support with quibble:  Some identical refs could be combined, also, repeating the entire reference each time instead of just the shortened form gets tedious very quickly. Circeus 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By shortened form, do you mean like here??? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Roughly. Though I don't mind if the first note uses a full text instead of having to refer to the references. Circeus 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * References changed, please remove your quibble :))) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Full support now following all the changes, and a big pat on the back for Alexandre for making all this effort and making the changes so quickly. Andreas 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support although I usually feel comfortable if articles exceed 32kb. Please see if you can add more material. Rama&#39;s Arrow 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles should actually avoid exceeding 32kb if possible - see Article size. Worldtraveller 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However, because of heavy German resistance the overall advance was quite modest and slow, and the operation was therefore accomplished in three stages (7-20 August, 21 August-6 September, and 7 September-2 October) with intervening stalemates. This sentence in the lead makes it sound like there were "intervening stalemates" of 0 days :) Haukur 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me, but I removed this mention. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support As per Kirill. Major criticisms have been addressed and now meets FA criteria. Well done.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment A very good article for the technical details of the battle, and an in depth description of unit movements, etc. However I felt that the terrible destruction of the battle needed to be brought out more. What would it be like if you were actually there, a Russian or a German soldier caught up in this horrendous battle? Nowhere in the text is the human cost of the battle mentioned, and nowhere is the immense human suffering of battle mentioned. What about an account from a soldier who was actually there, instead of a general talking about the numbers and titles of 'units' involved? Where is the human element in this article? It talks about units being able to continue the advance because they were 'reinforced'. Think what that word means - it means that hundreds and thousands of men met their deaths in horrible wretched circumstances amid the blaze of gunfire and artillery explosions. We shouldn't forget that an entire generation of Russians and Germans bled to death on the eastern front in WW2. The last thing I want to come across as is bloodthirsty, so I apologise if anyone has misunderstood my post. All I am trying to say is that war is hell. There should be at least some reflection of that in this article. Otherwise, it is easy to read it in the same was as an account of a football match, and forget the terrible cost of the battle. Bigdaddy1204 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)