Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2nd Red Banner Army/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2018 [1].

2nd Red Banner Army edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a field army of the Soviet Red Army during World War II, which served in the Far East and saw combat during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • I don't generally check links, and I'm not checking them here. The percentage of red links in this article may or may not be a problem at FAC.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ivan_Konev_c._1945.jpg: not seeing that license on the source page? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with File:Ivan Konev 2.jpg, a portrait from mil.ru. Kges1901 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

  • The lead seems short for an article of this length. Could be useful to include a second paragraph, maybe noting that it underwent multiple changes of how it was composed, or specific objectives during the Manchuria campaign?
  • Should perhaps include a transliteration of the Russian name.
  • "...the far eastern frontiers of the Soviet Union." Shouldn't "far eastern" be capitalised here, as it refers to a distinct geographic region of the USSR?
  • The first sentence of the "Before 1941" section reads awkwardly, with the "due to increased tensions with Japan" at the end. I'd move that clause up, perhaps like "Due to increased tensions with Japan, the 2nd Army was created in 1938."
  • Though it's linked, feel that "komkor" should have a translation provided.
  • "...which both inherited the front's Order of the Red Banner." This reads oddly, so should be clarified they each were awarded the order.
  • "The 2nd Independent Red Banner Army (2nd OKA)..." This the first mention of this name, so if it is the same as the 2nd Army it needs to be made clear.
  • "In September, the front was dissolved and its troops were split into two independent armies, which both inherited the front's Order of the Red Banner." This sentence comes in the middle of a description of the army (or so it seems), and seems more appropriate to move it either to the end of this paragraph, or to the start of the new one. Just makes it flow better.
  • I'd like to keep it in chronological order. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, on 22 June 1941, the 59th Tank Division and 69th Motorized Division were transferred by rail west to the front in accordance with a directive dated 25 June." Can be written clearer, something like: "Follwoing the beginning of Operation Barbarossa ... a directive dated 25 June transferred the 59th and 69th Divisions by rail to the western front."
  • "On 22 June the army also included the 101st Blagoveshchensk and the Ust-Bureysk fortified regions." This is somewhat unclear, and is better written like "the 101st and Ust-Bureysk were incorporated into the army on 22 June" (this seems like a response to Barbarossa, which if so could be added at the end).
  • Clarified, moved to the end of the next period because it seems out of place. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and remaining units (including the 3rd Fighter Aviation Regiment) were directly subordinated to the Air Force (VVS) of the 2nd KA." Better written as "the remaining unites were made directly subordinate to the Air Force."
  • "In August the 95th Mixed Aviation Division, which became the 95th Fighter Aviation Division (IAD) by 1 September, was formed in the VVS of the 2nd KA." Change to "In August the 95th Division was formed in the VVS; it became the 95th IAD by 1 September.
  • "In July, the 96th and 204th Rifle Divisions were shipped to the front..." Clarify what front, as both the Western and Far Eastern have been noted throughout.
  • Done, I decided to standardize on Eastern Front since that is what is first linked. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1943, the 1st and 2nd Amur tank brigades were formed in the army from its separate tank battalions, and in June, the 1st was merged into the 2nd. The latter became the 258th Tank Brigade in July" Can be simplified: "In April 1943 the 1st and 2nd brigades were formed; in June the 1st was merged into the 2nd, becoming the 258th in July."
  • "The army's three rifle divisions were at around 90% of their nominal strength..." Is 90% notable for some reason? Without context it seems odd to note that.
  • I felt that it was significant because it shows the manpower strength of the army. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aihun, Sunwu, and Hsunho were to be captured by the end of 11 August." Does that need to be in future tense? Can simply say "Aihun, Sunwu, and Hsunho were captured by the end of 11 August.
  • Clarified - scheduled/didn't actually happen. Kges1901 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyway to either expand the postwar section, or include it in the previous section? A two-sentence section for a feature article seems a little small.
  • Not a major issue, but there does seem to be a lot of red links throughout the article. A quick look through the Russian version of the article shows some of them exist there, would it be possible to do so here? This is not a factor in the overall status of the article, but more an observation. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress so far, make sure to ping me when it's all done, and I'll take another look at it. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this in some detail at GAN. A few points from me:

  • in the "Before 1941" section, there are a succession of sentences ending in "the army". Some could be dispensed with, perhaps mix up the language a bit, eg "formation"?
  • weird that one fortified region is numbered and the other is not (per 101st Blagoveshchensk). Makes me suspect that the 101st Blagoveshchensk was a division. Suggest listing them as 101st Blagoveshchensk Fortified Region and Ust-Bureysk Fortified Region? Or "101st Blagoveshchensk and Ust-Bureysk Fortified Regions"?
  • Both were listed as fortified regions. By 1941 most of the fortified regions had received numbers. Kges1901 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "31st SmAD departed for the Eastern Front" if that is what is meant, as there is also the Far Eastern Front.
  • suggest "73rd and 74th Tank Brigades" as these are formation titles
  • suggest "101st Blagoveshchensk Fortified Region" rather than 101st Fortified Region
  • I preferred to use the partial name after the first mention. Kges1901 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The 96th SmAD was converted into an IAD in May."
  • suggest "1st and 2nd Amur Tank Brigades" per above
  • Done. These were lowercased by dank's ce.Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the 355th Rifle Division be linked?
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Rifle Divisions and the 73rd and 74th Tank Brigades"
  • link reconnaissance
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Rifle Divisions"
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Divisions"

I had a quick search for more information, but you seem to have used all the main sources. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Kges1901, it looks like you may be on a short break from editing but we need to start seeing some movement here (ping Kaiser matias, address PM's comments, etc.) or this will be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

It is difficult for me to assess the quality and nature of the mainly Russian language sources, but as far as I can judge they seem to be of the appropriate standard. I've concentrated mainly on the mechanics. Ref 12 is lacking publisher information. Otherwise, all links appear to be working, and presentation is consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher. Kges1901 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fifelfoo edit

Support based on responses to questions. This seems stalled, but? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1c Question: Were there no authors with last names O-Z? (Pyl'cyn is irrelevant obviously, I must ask due to the unusual concentration of author last names)
  • Coincidence? I could make it more even if I cited Glantz's original source as well, but that isn't necessary. Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c Question: What makes Niehorster HQRS?
  • Niehorster is used in many similar articles which have reached featured status, so I thought he was considered a high quality SPS. In any case, Niehorster simply repeated the data in the Combat Composition of the Soviet Army, translated some from Drig or similar source, then added the army headquarters location from any number of declassified Soviet orders (though he anachronistically used the name of the city that wasn't adopted until 1957). Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c fix: Niehorster acknowledges coauthors: In Coorperation[sic] with Craig Crofoot & Marek Supłat
  • 1b Question: Given the extensive (and correct) treatment of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, why is the treatment of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol so limited?
  • Because the unit did not fight there, so far I have found only one aviation unit from the army that was sent to Khalkhin Gol. Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b Question: Were interesting historiographical or military science questions raised (I don't expect them to have been, but must ask)?
  • Trivial Glantz / Russian data plagiarism check conducted.
  • Forgot to ask earlier before striking issues clearly resolved: from your obvious reading, and given the grognardish topic which is liable to the general problem; does the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht specifically apply to the unit. Through your research efforts and deep reading of multiple language sources, was there indications that the 2nd Red Banner Army engaged in political or war criminal efforts. This is asked not as a slur, but of all military history topics by me given the essay I find influential Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay. We must ask this of ourselves particularly in the english language project given the abject failings listed there. Ask, and ask of our source readings. This is not a specific criticism of your article but a genuine question. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but Soviet treatment of Japanese POWs and activities in backing Chinese Communist forces in Manchuria are well known and covered elsewhere. Kges1901 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 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/2nd_Red_Banner_Army/archive1&oldid=849580697"