Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Third Battle of Kharkov


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

Third Battle of Kharkov

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

After two days of excruciating pain, scouring through sources and looking for information, I have expanded this article over five fold (from 7kB to 40kB). I'm interested, right now, in taking the article through an A-class Review. Ultimately, I will also put it through a FAC, but I know and feel that it isn't ready for that yet. Hopefully, the A-class review will improve it to the point where whatever does come in the FAC will be painless to fix (well, relatively painless... FACs are always painful). Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Add some more links.  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I tried wikilinking what I could in the lead; unfortunately, there isn't much to link to. :( JonCatalán(Talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Recommended reading" just doesn't sound right, and has a slightly POV slant. Perhaps change it to "Further reading"? Also, consider delinking the dates in the infobox to maintain consistancy with the body of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * The map is of a very large scale can it be replaced with a better one showing more detail.


 * A Soviet drive, spearheaded by four tank corps organized under Lieutenant General Markian Popov, tore through the German front - Tore through sounds very POV.


 * Likewise attacked the Second Panzer Army's right flank, making insignificant gains - in who's opinion were they insignificant.


 * In the First stage 19 February – 6 March section The Red Army's 3d Tank Army began to engage German units Is 3d correct or a typo ? as earlier in the article we have the 40th Army and the 69th Army for russian forces.


 * On 12 March The divisions II Battalion was able to surround the square - there are three II Battalions in the Division one each in the 1st SS Panzer regt,1st SS Pz-Gren Regt and the 2nd SS Pz-Gren Regt. can this be made clear which Battalion


 * Likewise with III Battalion under the command of Piper, this is easier as it must be the 3rd Btn of one of the 2 Pz-Gren regiments.


 *  In a bid to trap the city's defenders in the center, I Battalion of the 1st SS Panzergrenadier Battalion re-entered the city this does not make sense should it be I Battalion of the 1st SS Pz-Gren Regiment ?

The points above aside this is a good article which i enjoyed reading Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support now well done Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually tried to draw my own map, and failed pretty badly. That map I found on one of Wikipedia's user's gallery, as he had also drawn the map for the Second Battle of Kharkov.  I don't have any maps that are not copyrighted.  The only option would be to have one drawn.  I changed the two instances of tore to "broke" and "pierced".  In regards to "insignificant gains" I don't think that's POV, just matter of fact.  The Soviets couldn't break through the German defenses.  Those words are taken from the reference that it's attributed to.  I think it's a dangerous game to play to change words like that, just because they may sound as if a Russian reading the article wouldn't agree with them (when it's true—it would be like a Spaniard attempting to claim that the Battle of Annual wasn't a disaster for the Spanish Army).


 * In the Order of Battle, not all Soviet armies are listed because there were many of them. The 40th and 69th are used as examples (since they're the only ones provided in my references) to the average strength of a Red Army division on the sector, at the time.  The 3d Tank Army is actually introduced in the first paragraph of that same section; On 22 February, alarmed by the success of the German counterattack, the Russian Stavka ordered the Voronezh Front to shift the 3d Tank Army and 69th Army south, in an effort to alleviate pressure on the Southwestern Front and destroy German forces in the Krasnograd area.


 * I made it clear who that battalion belonged to by adding "2nd Panzergrenadier Regiment"; the same for the III battalion, which belonged to the same regiment. And, finally, "Battalion" -> "Regiment".  Thanks for catching that.  Thank you for your comments!  If you can think of something that is more "neutral" than "insignificant gains" I'd be happy to discuss it.  JonCatalán(Talk) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I exchanged "insignificant" for "minor", as suggested. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor question I haven't read the entire article yet, although it does look very good on overview. Small question: One of the sources is "Margry, Karel (2001). The Four Battles for Kharkov. London, United Kingdom: Battle of Britain International Ltd." Is Margry the first or last name? because in the references he is cited as Karel. -- Nudve (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Margry is the last name. I mixed them up when writing the references.  I'll fix them.  Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with comment: I really like it, a nice and clean article! Perhaps the only issue I could find would be that some references are needed within the first two paragraphs of the "Fight for the city 11 March – 15 March" section. Well done! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yea, those two paragraphs are unfortunately scarcely referenced.  They belong entirely to those three references; there is a lack of sources on the fighting which took place inside the city itself, thus the reliance on Margry.  JonCatalán(Talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support
 * I've fixed a couple times where the same thing has been linked to twice and fixed a couple stylist errors, however I think it could stand a copy-edit, mainly for writing style, especially before FAC.
 * I am especially concerned about this sentence. I've changed it a bit, but it still sounds awkward, mainly because of the use of the phrase "long-run." "Hitler immediately flew to von Manstein's headquarters at Zaporozhe, where the German general informed Hitler that while an immediate counterattack on Kharkov would be fruitless, he could successfully attack the Soviet overextended flank with his five Panzer Corps and recapture Kharkov over the long-run"
 * "where as a Panzer Division could not normally count on more than 100 tanks and most likely was composed of only 70–80 tanks in serviceable conditions at any given time." also sounds especially awkward.
 * The title "Order of Battle" should be changed, I would recommend creating a second article with the actual OOB, and renaming that section "Comparison of forces" or something, as that is not the traditional Order of Battle, just a listing of the units and commanders. Otherwise it looks good though, good job. The only major problem I forsee for FAC is the need for a copy-edit and awkward writing throughout. Joe  ( Talk ) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I rewrote those two sentences and changed the heading. Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Well constructed and well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I put this through a GA Review and found only a few things wrong with it, and after another run-through I can't see anything to object to. Skinny87 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.