Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blitzkrieg/archive1

Blitzkrieg
Informative lead. Fairly long article. Quite a few nice pictures. Terms nicely ilinked. References. External links. Nominating. Especially considering rather poor shape of other articles on military tactics/doctrines (or complete lack of thereof). Your thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. This looks quite good, but I have a few points: 1) This article needs a good copyedit. In a first quick lookthrough I already spotted three or four spelling and typing errors. There are probably many more. Putting the text through a spell checker should reveal most of these errors. 2) The lead section says: "[blitzkrieg] has became a synonym for any quick and desicive military operation", but the article stops in 1945. Were the blitzkrieg tactics used and/or improved after 1945? If so, tell us about it, if not, adjust the lead. 3) The "Notable persons" seems quite unnecessary and too short to be a section on its own. Most of the persons in here are already mentioned; those who are not should perhaps be. 4) A few of the images have no copyright information or no source mentioned. Jeronimo 07:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it has all been adressed now. Please look again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. There are quite a few red links (including Category:Military doctrines!!!), and the article needs copyediting.  Scare quotes around "volunteers" in the Spain section is POV.  RickK 07:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * This may not be as flagrant as it looks, because Spanish Civil War uses "volunteers" twice and though technically volunteers, they were obviously professionals who were equipped by their government. Nonetheless, a minor point--I changed it. 119 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding the specific objections above, please check the article again. 119 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the article isn't in much better shape then when I nominated it. You added an new empty (!) section on 'Soviet Union, 1942-45' - until it is filled or deleted (I'd prefer the first option) I myself have to object. Ummm...now is this the first - objection by the nominator? Also, you had deleted some ilinks and reverted my attempt to add them back to the article. As basically you are removing links to important people (like Erwin Rommel), I am afraid your actions DO NOT improve the article. I agree that the notable people section was not necessary, but simply deleting it togehter with useful links it contained is not the way to fix the problem. Care to explain why my addition of those links to the 'Guderian and German General Staff 'it makes no sense there'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You are overlooking the fact that I have been rewriting this article during most of January and you nominated it in the middle of this, apparently without checking the history seeing it's very unstable still. Compare this diff and tell me I'm not improving the article. If you think the Noteable persons section had valuable information, then you cannot simply paste it into a completely different section and say that it fits--it doesn't, wartime commanders of 1939-45 do not belong in a section preceding development during the 1936-39 Spanish War. Notice that the Heinz Guderian and German General Staff is under a section titled Development of theories and forces--did these commanders develop theories and forces before the Spanish Civil War? Your changes now are not working within the framework of the article or changing the framework to a more sensible format; you're just pasting things where they look half related. 119 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * True, you have visibly expanded the article, and I commend you for that. You did not, howevever, post a single thing on the discussion page that you were in the middle of something. I have no problem with you *moving* the generals paragraph (former notable people section) to a better fitting section, but simply removing it is not a good contribution to the article. Regarding your talk question 'where Where did you get that from?' - let me point you to history - Revision as of 03:54, 26 Jan 2005, by 119: Operations, Countermeasures, Notable persons. It appears you added it yourself some days ago... :> By all means, if you have better info now, correct *yourself*. Also, please tell me why do you consider the section 'Precusors', still visible in this old edit usless and deleted it without any info in talk or edit? I find your willingness to simply delete substantial amount of information you deem unnecessary from various article (we met before here, didn't we?) rather disturbing. I thought it was a single incident - now I begin to think I need to review your other 'contributions' as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is all discussed on Talk:Blitzkrieg where I point out that Poitrus' diff shows I added the correct information which he then changed to what was misleading, and the Precursors he claims are not acknowledged as such by any authors on blitzkrieg and belong in the broader Maneuver warfare. Furthermore, Piotrus, I demand an apology for accusing me to be vandalising articles (your words, Polish September Campaign) for not subscribing to your changes and the innuendo that I am an unreliable contributors whose edits must be monitored by you. I back my arguments up with facts--you need to do the same . 119 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As for your demand for apology: I admit thar majority of your other contributions which I *did* review today are good contributions to the Wiki. I disagree with some of your changes to Blitz article and I think what you did to PSC would be called vandalism if it was did by an anon user, but I guess it was some one-time mistake on your part. The diffrence is that you added much valuable info to Blitz article in addition to removing some sections, while in PSC article you simply removed several paragraphs without adding anything of value. If anybody's is interested in the details, he can go to the relevant talk pages, we are getting OT here (T being Blitzkrieg as FAC here). Half of your objections concern me bringing back a small portion of your own text which you removed, and which I think should be mentioned in the article. Note: you do realize that in your recent rv of my addition you removed more then I added, for example - the only reference to Guderian's 'Achtung! Panzer!' book? Perhaps this can be called an 'accident' or 'collateral damage' - not to use the 'v' word again :(. Or do you think that mentioning the Guderian book title is wrong? As for 'prelude' and 'successor' sections, I wont mind if they are shortened/rewritten/moved off to another article, but simple removal of them - which seem to be your way of dealing with any section *you* deem questionable in some part - is not the best way to deal with such problems. Thus, comparing the changes to the Blitz article previous versions (before you started working on it), I think that the info from 'prelude' and 'succeors' sections must be brought back (in some form) for this article to be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please take a look again. As 119 was apparently to busy/else? to work on the article, I have worked on it myself, hopefully adressing his objections and significantly expanding it (mostly by bringing back and rewriting large sections of material he deleted :>). Please take a look at it again - I think it is worthy of support and much better then it was at the moment of nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)