Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Arctic Fox/archive1

Operation Arctic Fox
I have expanded this article from stub to the current state with several iterations over the years and think its in a pretty good shape now. I want to bring this article to GA, but I never put an article through this process. Therefore I would appreciate some feedback if there are some major problems left which could prevent that. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Should use a consistent variety of English
 * Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
 * Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?
 * Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
 * Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
 * The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild
 * "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
 * File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?
 * Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description
 * File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details
 * Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author
 * Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I tried to address the issues raised, but I have some questions remaining if you dont mind. Below all your remarks and my actions:


 * I addressed the following points in the article:
 * Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
 * Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?
 * C: It is already in the article in prose as well as in the infobox. So I deleted this section.
 * Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
 * Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
 * "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
 * Should use a consistent variety of English
 * C: I tried to address this point and changed to British English where I found American terms/spellings.
 * Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading.
 * Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description
 * C: I added some more information. This map was created by me. Its not based on an existing map, its an compilation/combination of various maps and written informations from the 2 sources I added into the description.


 * My Questions:
 * Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author
 * I understand. However in the book it is stated that this particular author is the main author of the section where the citation is coming from. Should I still change it to the first author of the general volume?
 * No, in that case you should change the full citation to specify this particular section that you are citing - is it a chapter...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a chapter credited to Ueberschär. He wrote a large chapter about the German-Finnish War effort, which has a sub-chapter about Operation Arctic Fox. How should a citation look like in that case? Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok, I understand now where you are coming from. I thought I have to change the actual referencing, not the book. I will add the correct book citation and the correct image sourcing at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for your help. Dead Mary (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?
 * I didn't uploaded the picture. I think it would be point 3 or 4 (they are basically the same). The picture seems to circulate exclusively in the Russian internet as well as in Russian publications. I also couldn't find it in the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), so it seems to not have been published in Germany. I therefore would conclude it is a picture published in Russia without the author known, perhaps captured from a German soldier, making it free according to point 3/4. Do you think it is ok to keep the picture in the article or should it be replaced?
 * For either of those to apply, the work would need to have been published, not just created, before 1946 - do we know that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we dont really know anything I guess. I will replace the picture with a similar one to be more safe. Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details
 * The picture is self created by the author who uploaded it. It looks pretty legitimate. Therefore I don't know how to proceed, it was uploaded about 10 years ago.
 * Can you add sources to support the information conveyed by that image? Nikkimaria (talk)
 * Yes, I will do that.Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild
 * Ok, I understand. I have a general questions left regarding that topic: What do generally think of the article, especially my prose? I have difficulties to assess whether my general writing style is appropriate or if it is somehow completely off. English is not my native language. I think I have reasonable skills to articulate myself properly, but writing good articles is obviously a different matter.
 * Your writing is quite good for a non-native speaker, but there are some errors or instances where flow is interrupted - that is why I suggest Guild involvement, as they're generally quite good at addressing these types of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will put it up at the GoC Guild. Thank you for your review! Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you can answer my remaining questions. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you can answer my remaining questions. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)