Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bautzen (1945)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No consensus. Sorry, but this has been open for a while and it doesn't seem that anybody else is planning to support in the near future. With two supports, one neutral, and one set of comments from an editor who hasn't declared a position, it can't be closed as successful. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Bautzen (1945)

 * ''Nominator(s): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. The last round had two supports. To address last reviewer's final comment, which I missed before the discussion got archived, Polska Zbrojna and Zbigniew Wawer seem reliable. No, Wawer does not provide a list of most bloody Polish battles; but he is an expert on the subject and I see no reason to dispute his claim. In any case, his claim is attributed in text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like one more source introduced into the first paragraph of teh "Background" section, which otherwise relies on a single source except for the last sentence. This has an effect on the coverage and neutrality, although it's hard to say exactly what. I find they are often unknown unknowns when I'm introducing sources. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in that paragraph to fall under the WP:REDFLAG? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not say so. However, I assume that is a statement to the effect that you believe that action is not required under the criteria. I would say that the same picniples applied to any significant run of sentences as an article: that a single source could be damaging to firstly, A1, "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", and A2 "comprehensive... and presents views fairly and without bias". We are presenting a selection of the facts, and it's important that this selection reflects the overall coverage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hrmp. The last time I asked an editor here to provide more then one reference per paragraph I was told, in quite strong words, that this is too much. As I am not seeing any of my sources going into the level of detail of the one used, and as you yourself admit this is not a REDFLAG, I believe that my one-ref-per-sentence standard is satisfying MOS and other relevant criteria. If you'd be so kind as to provide me with a reference that would allow me to flesh this out, I'd of course consider using it, but I am currently convinced that this paragraph is sufficiently referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my area - and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposing over it. It is up to the other editor's discretion. My point was that the way other sources cover these events is likely to be slightly different, and it is very useful if the article reflected that. Just like in the rest of the article, where different sources are woven together to provide better coverage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I've just realised that ref 10 might cover the whole paragraph? If it does, sorry, there's no problem. Else, might it also cover the preceding overview in some capacity? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle. There is scope for more expansion, if more sources are found, but I guess we agree that it is not strictly necessary. As I wasn't the one who added ref 10, I am afraid I wouldn't know. You may want to ask the editor who did (StoneProphet?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref10 was acutally only added for the last sentence, although it probably could be partly applicated on some of the others too.StoneProphet (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent). In that case I remain neutral. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment:


 * 1) Lead:  In the absence of a WikiPage for the red-linked "Spremberg–Torgau Offensive" it would be good if there could be a few more words describing this offensive.
 * Yes, it would. I am looking forward to somebody writing it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added link. Farawayman (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Lead:  Third paragraph of lead raises what could be viewed as a number of contentious issues - although they are again mentioned in the body and are well cited there - these is no harm in repeating the citations for these statements - especially ".... modern Polish historians became much more critical of Świerczewski's command, blaming his incompetence and desire to capture Dresden for the near destruction of the Polish forces."
 * I'd prefer not to clutter the lead, but I would not object to somebody adding it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Polish retreat:  "He also sent his chief of staff, General Ivan Yefimovich Petrov, and his chief of operations, General Vladimir Ivanovich Kostylev, to look at the situation" - I think it needs to be made clear that Petrov was Koniev's CofS.  Could be ambiguous to unfamiliar readers.  (More specifically, as I understood the course of events - Koniev sent Petrov to try to recover the situation and launch a counter-attack while Kostylev was specifically sent to try to locate Świerczewski.  However, Koniev only spent a few hours at the front and delegated all responsibility to Kostylev).
 * He->Koniev fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Polish Retreat:  One of the key actions taken by Kostylev was to bring the 2nd Air Army into the battle - perhaps this needs to be mentioned.
 * Sounds good. Would you happen to have a ref for it? Seems mentioned in Erickson, added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Other:  I am not use if Schörner was actually in Command of the German forces because he had been promoted to Field Marshal in April.  It is certain that Fritz-Hubert Gräser was involved as commander of 4th Panzer.  Please check this - but then again, at this time the German command structure was in a total mess.
 * Agreed. I looked into this a while ago: Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Other:  For A Class, I would strongly recommend having the maps translated into English.  Refer  Wikipedia:Graphic Lab - I'm sure they could assist.
 * Will ask for assistance right now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Other:  Remove " ? guns" from the "Strength" section of the infobox.
 * Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Farawayman (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Well written and interesting article covering largely unknown events!


 * Comment: What is shown on the two polish maps of the battle? It should be explained for the non-polish-speaking people, otherwise it is quite useless. And to the other map: I think a map of 1937 Germany is not the best to show the location of the battleside. Best would be a map with the frontlines in April 1945. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop. In progress. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose A1


 * Since I'm the "last reviewer" I suppose I should chime in that I don't feel like my concerns were addressed before the renomination, which isn't a good sign, but I'm perfectly reasonable.
 * The article has a majority of citations from two sources, one of which is a webpage from Polska Zbrojna (polska-zbrojna.pl).
 * That article is written in Polish with no citations to back up the facts (for example, the 'bloodiest battle' I mentioned in the previous nom - can't you find an English language citation for that fact?).
 * Ways to fix this: establish the reliability of the source (do other English wikipedia A/FA articles use this source?), reliability of the author (maybe some books or journal articles?), and have another editor who is fluent in Polish review the article for plagiarism.
 * I would also ping one of the MilHist admins to review the article; I've never seen an article with that many citations from a non-english sources get this far, usually its just a handful to fill out the gaps. Kirk (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * reliability of the author (maybe some books or journal articles?) - the first line of this page already establishes the author's, Zbigniew Wawer's, reliability. He is a military historian specializing in World War II, and author of several books and member of the Polish Academy of Science
 * I can also review the article for plagiarism (sic) (you mean copyvio)... but why would you expect that there would be some? Volunteer Marek 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the article and source for copyvios. There aren't any. Text is properly paraphrased. Volunteer Marek 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Polska Zbrojna for reliability. And as I mentioned last time, the most bloody claim is attributed to the historian, so one can take it or leave it upon examining the reliability, with both the historian and the magazine having English entries. Also, a lot of topics don't have significant coverage in English and require foreign sources, which is indeed quite allowed up to and including the FA (WP:NOENG). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add WP:NOENG says English language sources are preferred. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But not required. Also, they often don't exist, as is the case here, AFAICT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info on Wawer and checking the source text. His books use footnotes so I wonder why they weren't used in this case. Maybe some of this content is in one of his books?
 * I am not getting any google book hits on Wawer and Budziszyn, leading me to believe he was just interviewed about that battle for an article. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern with 'most bloody battle' at this point is I have no idea what that means (number deaths, number of deaths+wounded, casualties, other?), and it was translated from a foreign language by the nom which is why it would be nice to have another citation for that fact. Maybe you could put original quote in a note?
 * Original quote, you can ask another Polish speaker to verify it or machine translate it for that purpose: "Nie było to starcie zwycięskie, straty były ogromne – największe poniesione w jednej bitwie przez Wojsko Polskie po wrześniu 1939 roku. Więcej ofiar pochłonęły tylko walki nad Bzurą." --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good, but put it in the article in a note so the reader has some idea why that claim is in the article. I still don't know what a bloody battle means that's why finding a second source for that fact would be good because it might have the context.
 * Its unusual for articles to be promoted to A when they rely on a single source for over 25% of the citations. Could you replace some of the Polska Zbrojna citations with another source? Kirk (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unusual... can you show me where it is said in the rules that such articles are not permitted to be A-class? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not a rule - theoretically, you could have a A article with a single source and a single citation, but if you want to achieve A2 you have to show your article is looking at the breadth of English-language scholarship on a topic. I think you are asserting there is no other scholarship on this topic, which I guess could happen but I think you could find some more sources if you tried. The way I usually do this is by looking through the bibliography of the main source but since your source has no bibliography its going to be more difficult.
 * Polska Zbrojna is probably ok if any MilHist A articles use that source; if not, ask one of the coordinators to look at this article. Kirk (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, remind me which one speaks Polish? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I reviewed this last time, I only have a few minor points. I looked mainly at presentation:
 * in the infobox there is a slight inconsistency in the style that you present the units involved. I suggest changing "elements of the German 4th Panzer and 17th Armies" to "4th Panzer Army (elements)" and "17th Army (elements)";
 * "isolated clashes in that region continued till April 30". This might sound smoother as "...isolated clashes in that region continued until April 30";
 * the duplicate links tool highlights a few duplicate links that you might consider cutting. The general rule is once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the prose. Sometimes, at FAC, it will be considered okay to include a second link in the body if there is some distance between the mentions. As such, I leave this as a suggestion only for you to use your own judgement as to whether the links are necessary. The links that the tool highlighted as duplicate are: Battle of Berlin (in the lead), 17th Infantry Division (Germany), Volkssturm, Lohsa, Spree, Panschwitz-Kuckau, and Kamenz;
 * in the References, there are examples of duplicate full stops, e.g. "Ministry of National Defense Pub.." These should probably be cut to just single full stops;
 * in the References, I think that the titles should be presented in title case, not sentence case. For instance "Poles in the battle of Berlin" probably should be "Poles in the Battle of Berlin";
 * the References might be better presented using some form of short citation method. For instance see List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E), which is also up for A-class review at the moment. It would cut down on duplicte information. This is only a suggestion, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, most of the above fixed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support Further copyediting is recommended if it's intended to take the article to FAC. Thank you for an enjoyable read about a battle I knew nothing about. Best, EyeSerene talk 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The technical bits:
 * No dablinks
 * No issues with reflinks
 * External links check out fine
 * Image licenses good
 * Optional: images don't have alt text (not an A-Class requirement)
 * Spot check of article text against sources (web-accessible only and with heavy use of Google translate!) seems fine.
 * Why is Andrzej Solak a reliable source? He claims, for example "the death of nearly eight thousand Polish soldiers", which seems to be inaccurate.
 * Prose is generally good. I've done some minor copyediting in places; please feel free to rv anything you don't like :)
 * Historiography section: "He might have also been relieved of his command for a brief period by Marshal Konev. " Not sure what this is saying


 * I've reducent reliance on Solak, who is indeed not very reliability. The cited sentence means that according to the source cited, Swierczewski was relieved of his command by Konev, for a brief period. Could you rewrite it so it is more clear? It seems clear enough to me. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked that sentence and struck both my objections per your replies. I've also done some copyediting of the Background section; the only substantive change is that I removed the note about Świerczewski's departure from Konev's plan having dire consequences, because that's looking ahead to the end of the article and therefore jumping out of the chronological order. If you want to put it back though, please do!
 * One more question for you: the article uses both "Polish Second Army" and "2nd Army". Which is preferred for consistency? EyeSerene talk 09:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out. I think that Polish Second Army, per article (Second Army (Poland)), but I am open to another option if we have some mil units naming guidelines. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed all references to 2nd Polish Army to read Polish Second Army. There may be some additional consistency issues with the naming for other units (eg Soviet 52nd Army), but the only guiidance I can find at WP:MILMOS is Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army". You'd know better than I which version is preferred in Polish sources. Anyway, happy to support and thanks again for an interesting article. EyeSerene talk 08:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.