Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/15th Tank Corps/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2018 [1].

15th Tank Corps edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Soviet tank formation that fought in World War II, serving in many major actions such as the Soviet offensive after Stalingrad and the Third Battle of Kharkov. I would like to improve this as far as possible, and am attempting to improve coverage of an underrepresented area of World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps and providing a legend for the first
  • File:Polozenie_17_09_1939.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Same with File:Operation_Star_1.png, File:Operation_Star_2.png, File:Operation_Star_3.png
  • The maps are own work by the users who created them, but they match up with what I've read on the battles. I will post on MILHIST talk asking if there are any users who would be willing to make maps (I don't have the expertise to do it myself), as the books I've consulted have maps that include the corps.
  • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the rationales in the given tag is believed to apply?\
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg: FUR is not adequate for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any more information on the image than I did for the A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

All sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. In the case of citation 12, the details are not clear. What does "fond 38" mean? If I wished to verify this citation, how would I go about it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To verify, one would go to the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Podolsk which is near Moscow, look up fond 38 (a section of the archives), then find opus 11373 (sub-section). In opus 11373 file 150 would include the data. Unfortunately the document is not one of those posted online, and I obtained the data from a fairly decent SPS. I would hate to make the article less detailed on this point as it is a snapshot of the corps at about full strength. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • No overlinking
  • Link mechanized corps, mortar, sapper, minefield
  • Done, except for mortar which was already linked. Kges1901 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • During its first formation I dislike this phrase here as it kinda negates the impact of its participation in the invasion of Poland. I suggest keeping everything here chronological and combine the second and third sentences of the first para, being sure to moving its disbandment to the last thing in the para.
  • batteries of the two rifle regiments I think that you mean artillery batteries here?
  • Who did the 101st and 119th Rifle Regiments belong to?
  • What's a KMG?
  • Abbreviation for the cavalry mechanized group, explained in the first paragraph of the section. Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 3rd Tank Corps had seized Smetskiye Vyselkami How is this possible? Do you mean the 3rd Tank Army?
  • The 3rd Tank Corps, a unit temporarily attached to the army for the operation. Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ordered the transfer of the 15th Tank Corps. transferred to what? This whole section is unclear.
  • I really like the maps, but they don't quite match the text.
  • Could you elaborate on your specific concerns? Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 26 August map looks like it's actually covering the actions from 23 to 27 August. And are Smetskiye Vyselkami and Smetskaya the same place?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed caption for map. As for places, the former no longer exists today, Smetskaya is a location mentioned as different in my sources. Kges1901 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The renewed attack began on 2 September and was delayed due to German air attacks, and a regiment from the 264th Rifle Division was unable to cross the Vytebet River and capture the village of Ozhigovo, which was necessary for the 15th Corps to exploit the breakthrough, forcing Koptsov to commit the 17th Motor Rifle Brigade and the 113th and 195th Brigades' motor rifle battalions to the battle. Break this into two or three sentences. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of commanders seems redundant with them all listed in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer, assuming Sturmvogel is also happy with your edits. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • In the lead, why "was formed" rather than just "formed"? this happens multiple times
  • Adjusted. I was unaware that the was was in this case redundant. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Corps commander Koptsov" - why not just say Koptsov again? The commander descriptor is more confusing IMO
  • "Support units included the 401st Separate Communications Battalion." - just the one battalion? I'd use a different word than include here, then
  • "while the 20th Brigade had 61 BAs, a total of 461 tanks and 122 armored cars" - why the separate identification of "total"? Aren't they all totals?
  • "Chuvakin's troops also lost 11 killed and 14 wounded.[3]" - also lost 11 killed? Reads as redundant. And then after that, what does it mean to lose wounded?
  • I meant for also in addition to the previously noted equipment loss. Wounded can be 'lost' in the sense that they are no longer capable of fighting, because depending on the severity of the wound they would be evacuated to hospitals. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "killed around 40 officers" - about, not around
  • "the 15th had advanced only 200 to 300 meters" - convert template would be helpful
  • "During the fighting, the corps reported 650 German soldiers killed at a cost of 350 killed and wounded.[41]" - not sure "cost" works here, perhaps another word?
  • Cost is commonly used to describe casualties in military history, for example "costly victory". Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffering losses of 360 killed and wounded" - same note as above; what does it mean to lose wounded?
  • Think you may need to add some {{nowrap}}s and WP:NBSPs throughout. I can help if you need instructions on how to go about doing that.
  • Could you elaborate on specifically where? I am unfamiliar with the use of these templates. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that you shouldn't break up words that make up proper names or organization names. I can run through at some point and try to fix them up. ceranthor 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks solid. ceranthor 03:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note: I think I want to post a few more suggestions after I get through an NBSP cleanup. Will post those asap. ceranthor 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few more comments, then happy to support:

  • "In February, the unit fought in Operation Star, whose objective was the capture of the important city of Kharkov in eastern Ukraine, and participated in the capture of that city." - last bit seems redundant
  • " which divided Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and also guaranteed that neither country would attack the other." - would cut the comma before "and" as well as the "also" after it
  • "eliminated a group of around 250 officers" - same "around" note as before
  • "The 27th Brigade had lost two burned" - total nitpick, but don't think you need "had" before lost
  • "On the first day of the attack, the 154th and 264th Rifle Divisions were sent into the attack first, but could not break through" - just saying "break through" seems a bit vague and perhaps a tad unencylopedic, does the source provide any indication of a more specific verb to use?
  • Addressed all except the last as the source only says breakthrough. Kges1901 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! ceranthor 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Sorry to come to this a little late, but I think we need an eye or two more on the prose. For example, a lot of paragraphs begin with a date. I don't think it is a large problem, but I wonder if Ian Rose, HJ Mitchell or Mike Christie could have a quick look? Sarastro (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments from Ian edit

Copyedited so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything. I'm not expert either on tanks or the Eastern Front campaigns so this review is purely for prose. Outstanding points:

  • "the 27th Brigade, which crossed the river behind the 119th, eliminated a group of about 250 officers defending the wooded hills" -- "eliminated" in this context sounds a bit like "liquidated"; were these officers killed in normal fighting or executed?
  • Rephrased to "destroyed" since the mention of tank support looks like conventional fighting. Kges1901 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Main Military Council had considered the tank corps' performance in Poland unsatisfactory" -- anything on the Council's rationale for finding the performance unsatisfactory; do any of the sources comment on whether this was a reasonable judgement?
  • "The order was given to relocate to the Kozelsk area in preparation for the attack on 14 August" -- this makes it sound like the attack was due to begin 14 August but presumably means either that preparations took place on 14 August, or the order to do so was given on 14 August, or both; which?
  • "after a short artillery preparation" -- does "preparation" mean "softening up"; could we just say "attack" or "barrage"?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your prompt attention, Kges -- rephased your new wording a bit but overall this addresses my concerns and I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/15th_Tank_Corps/archive1&oldid=830456803"