Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/15th Tank Corps

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union) edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers a Soviet tank corps that was formed twice. Its first formation, formed in 1938, fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland and was disbanded shortly afterwards. Its second formation was formed in 1942 and fought on the Eastern Front for more than a year before becoming an elite Guards unit. The article recently passed a GA review, and I would like to improve it further as part of my goal of increasing the number of A-class and FA articles about Soviet military history. Kges1901 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the Russian rationales applies here?
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg needs a better FUR and more info on its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On this, going off of these rules, if the photographer is unknown: "But the Berne Convention says that photographs are in the public domain 50 years after publication if the photographer is unknown. This applies unless a country has made a specific law." The photographer in this instance, according to the tagging, is unknown. Can you lookup if Russia has any laws on unknown photographers and copyright? We could then use it as a free image. Otherwise, we will probably have to reduce the resolution of it, since it is a non-free image. Kees08 (Talk) 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: Anonymous works are copyrighted until 70 years after publication. Assuming that the photo was published before 1943, it would be PD now. The problem is that I can never find definite proof of the photo being published before 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest adding a list of commanders to the body of the article, including (if possible), the years of their command
  • in the lead, "and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky..." --> explain very briefly who Lozovsky was
  • link BA-I here: "and 30 BA armored cars"
  • "Lawrence, KS, USA": spell out the abbreviation "KS" and remove "USA" for consistency
  • I suggest putting the citations into columns to reduce the amount of whitespace
  • Tried to using {{reflist|30em}} but display appearance has not changed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • if possible, an image in the infobox would help improve the visual appeal of the article
  • I was unable to find a relevant image on the internet. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date format, compare "29 December 2016" with "2016-12-27"
  • Citations 26 & 27 should also have accessdate/retrieved dates
  • "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its formation at Wilno and Soleczniki...." --> "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its service at Wilno and Soleczniki"?
  • "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmerie forces, and volunteers..." --> "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmes, and volunteers
  • "...the other corps of the army..." --> by "army" do you mean the 3rd Guards Tank Army? If so, it is probably best just to say this.

@Kges1901: Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • link "chief of staff"
  • suggest splitting the paragraph starting "The corps fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939", as it is quite long
  • spell out the abbreviation "NCO"
  • "Rossosh-Alexandrovka-Rovenki highway": the hyphens should be endashes
  • quite a few sentences begin "The corps..." (at least 21 that I could count), is it possible to try to vary this a little more?
  • Adressed all completely except the last, for which I changed a number of sentences. Kges1901 (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga edit

Good see the Russian military articles every now and then. Good work Kges, here are my comments.

  • Lead and infobox
    • During its first formation, it helped take "to takeover" the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest; Also the sentence ends in vague, mention who did it help and from whom is the city recaptured.
  • Done
    • The corps was formed a "for the" second time, link Major General
  • Done
    • Surrounded during the Third Battle of Kharkov; by whom?
  • Done
    • change 1938–40 (1st formation) and 1942–43 (2nd formation) in the infobox to 1938–1940 (1st formation) and 1942–1943 (2nd formation) respectively, per MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • Section 1;
    • Mention the modern equivalent for Komdiv in braces.
  • Done
    • Replace "the former" with "formerly" in every case
  • Done
  • After reading MOS:TIME, I think that 24 hour is acceptable, with the added colon in the middle. Kges1901 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some time later -> Later; cut-off "Some time", "Later" says it all
    • By 1900 -> By 7:00 pm, per MOS:TIME
    • Mention the full name of "Major Chuvakin" on the first instant
  • Added his initials, which are all that I could find Kges1901 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Section 2; (sub-sections included)
    • On the first day, 14 January; both are redundant to each other, perhaps the former is better
    • use conversion template for 20-kilometer
  • Done
    • Pavel Rybalko; mention the rank
  • Done
    • use conversion template for 25 kilometers
  • Done
    • rank of Filipp Golikov
  • Done
    • In section 2.3, use the acronym of "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"
  • Done
    • promoted to Major General on 7 June -> later major general; the dates of promotion are out of context
  • Done
    • Maintain consistency between numbers or wording numbers, for example; 209 tanks and sixteen self-propelled guns
  • Made (or at least most) consistent using AP Stylebook which recommended spelling out 0-9 and then using numerals for higher numbers.
  • Section 3;
    • (promoted to Major General 7 June); out of context
  • Done, added year
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as all my comments are addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "During its first formation, it and other Red Army units captured the city" - would "During its first formation, it participated in the capture of the city" read better? (would avoid repetition of Red Army, and might read more naturally)
  • Done
  • "and fought in the Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive, Third Battle of Kharkov," > "the Third Battle..."
  • Done
  • "resulting in the death of Koptsov and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky, its chief of staff. " - the word "promotion" is ambiguous, and the main text doesn't reinforce it, only noting he was made the acting commander of the unit.
  • "The corps was formed in 1938 from the 5th Mechanized Corps as the 15th Tank Corps, with the honorific "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky", who was a Soviet military theorist." - read rather oddly to me. Is it saying that it was formed in 1938 as the "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? Or the "Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? (I'm a bit confused)
  • Literal Russian word order would be "15th Tank Corps named for Kalinovsky", although the phrase "имени" could also be translated as "in the name of" Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the corps included the 2nd Light Tank Brigade (formerly 5th Mechanized Brigade)" - unclear what the "formerly" means in this context. Could it become a footnote, with some sort of explanation? (it would read more easily)
  • I meant for it to say that it was previously known as the 5th Mechanized Brigade. Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with headquarters in Borisov" > "with its headquarters in Borisov"?
  • Done
  • "By the end of the day motorcycle units" > "By the end of the day, motorcycle units"?
  • Done
  • "a large number of small arms, a mortar, and an anti-aircraft gun" - worth linking these
  • Done
  • "On 10 October, corps headquarters and the tank brigades were stationed at Wilno" > "the corps headquarters"
  • Done
  • "included 150 tanks, broken down as follows:" - when I first read this, I assumed "broken down" related to the tanks; any alternative language options?
  • Switched the sentence around.
  • "On the same day, the 105th Brigade became a separate unit and soon transferred to the 5th Tank Army." - "was soon" would keep the tense consistent
  • Done
  • "The 88th Tank Brigade joined the corps on 30 October,[10] and in December the 52nd Motor Rifle Brigade became part of the corps. " - any way of avoiding repeating 'the corps'?
  • Rephrased
  • "The 15th rested and refitted for the next several months" - refitted as what? (similarly when refitting is mentioned later on)
  • Explained the apparent jargon at first mention
  • "German troops from the 4th Panzer Army counterattacked the Southwestern Front's exploiting forces " - an "exploiting force" I know, but the reader may not...
  • Rephrased, does it work now?
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January," - when introducing a new section, I'd expect to see the year defined in the date, e.g. "14 January 1942"
  • Done
  • "before dying of the severe wound" - you don't need to repeat "severe" here (its clear from the sequence of the paragraph)
  • Done
  • " 16 self-propelled guns" - worth linking
  • Done
  • "On 26 July 1943, the corps was converted into the 7th Guards Tank Corps[11] along with the other corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army, becoming part of the elite Soviet Guards, for its actions in the offensive." - could this be a final paragraph? Would make it easier for the reader to spot what finally happened to the corps. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for the last suggestion, but now it is abnormally short since the new paragraph is only a sentence (albeit long). Kges1901 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to support. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Why is the article not simply 15th Tank Corps? I don't know if there are any other claimants to the primary location here.
  • Moved. Initially I had the disambig attached because of the UK Tank Corps and the AEF Tank Corps, however I realized that only the Soviet Union had numbered tank corps. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...ended with only 200 tanks remaining in the army." - there's no context for this figure, can you add something like "out of 'X number' assigned." or something similar?
  • Done, found additional information in Forczyk Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January 1942..." - should this be 1943?
  • The link goes to the right unit, and in Feb 43 the corps was called just the SS Panzer Corps, as according to its article it didn't become II SS Panzer Corps until June 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...fighting in heavy street fighting..." - this is a little redundant, can we replace one of the "fighting"s?
  • What makes warheros.ru a reliable source?
  • The sources for the Warheroes.ru biographies referenced in the article are the Soviet-era biographical dictionaries listed at the bottom of each page. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's good enough - several years ago, several of us advanced the same argument in favor of navweaps.com, and the consensus at WP:RSN was that if those references support the material on a self-published site, we ought to just use those references directly. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with removing warheroes is that now the information isn't really verifiable because these books cited on warheroes would be even harder for English Wikipedia users to obtain than the battleship reference books cited by navweaps. Kges1901 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the thread I'm referencing - in it, somebody made basically the same argument (actually with regard to Russian language sources) and it was discounted. Granted, that was 7 years ago, but I don't know that the policy on self-published sources has changed in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kges1901: - is there any way warheros.ru and tankfront.ru can be replaced? I don't think we can promote an article that includes self-published sources. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on replacing the websites with references to the sources they used. Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on tankfront is from the following sources:
  • for the assignment of each unit on the first day of a month: Combat composition of the Soviet Army
  • Strength figures: sources listed next to the information on the page
  • transfers/formations: presumably, the relevant orders mentioned on each tankfront page
  • Anything else: sources listed on the bottom of the page or in the sitewide bibliography page Kges1901 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: I have replaced the warheroes links and started the process of removing tankfront. I was able to get two detailed 3rd Tank Army history books off the internet and will work on translating information from Russian starting tomorrow. The information in the two histories combined should be the same as what's on tankfront. Kges1901 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: - I have replaced all of the tankfront links, expanded the lead, and added around 15k bytes of prose from information in Shein and Zvartsev's books. Kges1901 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Auntieruth

  • wow, Kges this is very interesting. I'm hoping that you will be able to replace those citations, because, well, you know of the discussion about reliable sources going on in the project right now, and although they may be fundamentally reliable, it's nearly impossible to tell. So good job for you. Also, linking back to the sources in another wiki article, if they aren't cited properly there, is problematic.
  • I'm wondering if you can add some qualifiers to explain that in its first formation, the unit fought the Poles in alliance with the Germans, and in its second, it fought the Germans??? (possibly in alliance with the Poles? IDK on that).
  • Added context on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I think it is pretty clear that the 2nd formation was fighting Germans because of repeated mentions in the lead of them fighting Germans.Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • make sure that all your generals etc are linked in their first instance inthe body of the text not just in the lead. I'm not sure Koptsov is. Also, I have no sense of distance on these different maneuvers.
  • Linked Koptsov in the body, added some context on where various places are located in the lead. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the Main Military Council had considered the tank corps' performance in Poland unsatisfactory....because instead of as. "As" implies that it happened concurrently, as I went here, you went there. Because implies one then the other.
  • is the Vytebet a river? a mountain range? if it's a river, we need a link at least to a stub. Also, Ozhigovo? city? I do this with the German towns. It's all so familiar to me I forget that others don't have the map of Prussia, or Bavaria, or where ever in their heads.
  • Created a stub on the river, explained that Ozhigovo is a village. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first formation needs to be preceded by a brief explanation of the treaty. The second formation needs a couple of sentences clarifying that the enemy was now Germany, and why. We cannot assume your readers will know this, especially if they come upon the article at random. auntieruth (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, we're good. I added a phrase, and added an "s" to German(s). auntieruth (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Some comments by EyeTruth edit

  •  Resolved The corps was formed in 1938 from the 5th Mechanized Corps as the 15th Tank Corps at Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow Military District, with the honorific "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky" — Is it the 5th Mechanized Corps or the 15th Tank Corps or both that were named after Kalinovsky? Currently it reads as if it was the 15 TC that was given the honorific.
  • Both were named after Kalinovsky, rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pending During the battle, the corps reportedly killed 320 officers, 20 non-commissioned officers, and 194 soldiers, many of whom were crushed by tanks in the eastern part of the city. — These are very precise figures, so they almost certainly came from sources close to the event (combat reports? operational summaries?). If these figures of killed and wounded are not coming from the Polish side, then it’s beneficial to clarify that (consider the struck-out “reportedly”). This also applies to the other instances of WIA and KIA for Polish and German units throughout the article. (Reliable POW figures typically come from the captor’s documents that were created for internal use, so no need to clarify those). EyeTruth (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures are most likely Soviet combat reports, as implied in Magnuski & Kolomiets. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is probably useful to make that distinction, unless the origin is not known with complete certainty. I believe the origin of those figures can be precisely determined from the archival sources that Magnuski & Kolomiets cites. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the German casualty numbers, I think I've made the origin clear by saying that the corps reported the figures, as that implies a combat report. Kges1901 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. If you can't determine with certainty where the above Polish casualty figures came from, then not much else can be done for now (although my bet is strongly on Soviet combat reports). I noticed the majority of casualty figures in the article are properly attributed. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Magnuski and Kolomiets don't inline cite the documents they used specifically, so there's no way of knowing since Meltyukhov doesn't have as much detail on casualties.Kges1901 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved The delays in the advance caused the armor to move behind the infantry — Move behind or lag behind?
  • Fixed, it should have been lag behind. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved After marching 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) — Advancing is more suitable. Tank units typically don’t march.
  • Clarified with more details, IMO advancing implies combat, but this was more a relocation to another sector. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved On the night of 29 to 30 August, the corps was pulled out of the line and concentrated in the forest a kilometer south of Meshalkino in order to carry out an attack on Sorokino planned for that morning in conjunction with the 154th Rifle Division and 12th Tank Corps. The attack was cancelled due to the heavy losses suffered by both the 12th Tank Corps and 154th Rifle Division, and the 15th also required time to reorganize. — This is a bit confusing. The three units were to attack together, so how did two of them suffer heavy losses before the attack occurred? Was the attack carried out in piecemeal or were they preempted by the Germans? Some clarification may be needed. EyeTruth (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified that the losses were from the previous fighting. I already explained that it was cancelled due to said heavy losses. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments – Sources

  • It is the archived website of Yevgeny Drig, a Russian historian who wrote a book on the Red Army mechanized corps, published by Transkniga in 2005. Steven Zaloga described his book as the "essential history" of the subject from the Soviet perspective, and David Glantz uses the book as the main source for information on mechanized corps including in Barbarossa Derailed. I can't directly cite the book because Drig didn't research the mechanized corps predecessors (the 1930s tank and mechanized corps) in detail until after he published the book. Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide that context in the Sources section in a very succinct way? You can look to the Sources section of the Battle of Kursk article, or some other GA or FA out there, for examples of how you may be able to do this. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided context, and converted those refs to sfns. Kges1901 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want to keep it focused on the cited source and less on the author's other work, unless that work is directly connected to the cited source (which currently isn't clear). Also consider adding the author's Cyrillic name in addition to the English transcription. His transcribed name turns up nothing on the net (and indeed is rendered in different ways), but at least Cyrilic does. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased and added the Russian name. Kges1901 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than before. But the source is still very vulnerable to an RS-challenge. (I hope you don't mind that I indented your reply). EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is, actually - Drig is a published expert in the field, so he passes the WP:SPS bar. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen such an argument get crushed at the RS Noticeboard; it was over genetics. The WP policy WP:SPS implores extra caution when citing personal websites irrespective of the credibility of the author. But I frankly don't expect this case to ever be an issue. EyeTruth (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd argue that those individuals don't understand the policy ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked back and it was a little different matter, sources versus other sources, and it got big but never actually went to RS. Need to correct that memory. EyeTruth (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved Are you aware that Mikhail Meltyukhov's Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939 has recieved some very serious critism for seemingly being biased against Poland while underplaying Soviet aggression and war crimes? E.g. this brief critisim in page 18 of this paper by a fellow Russian historian, and a more extensive one in this paper by the Polish historian Andrzej Nowak.
  • I am aware of that and I previously talked to Piotrus, who was involved in the discussion on the talkpage of the Meltyukhov article back then, and he said that Meltyukhov could be used as long as it was something that wasn't a controversial claim, essentially (not an exact quote - you can find the original conversation in Piotrus' talkpage archives). I also used it because this was before I found Magnuski and Kolomiets, who basically had the same information because they probably worked from the same archive files. Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that Meltyukhov is an expert in Soviet military history, but given that he has been criticized by multiple historians, including fellow Russian historians, for lacing his 2001-work, Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939, with serious anti-Polish bias (which unfortunately is not yet an uncommon thing in Russian literature on Polish history), one has to be cautious about how his 2001-work is used as a reference for Soviet actions in Poland. I haven’t look into the specific contents that it was cited for in the article though. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The events I've used Meltyukhov for aren't really things that IMO could have an anti-Polish bias, like when the corps reached certain areas. Most of this information was in Magnuski & Kolomiets, but some of it wasn't, which I thinks is because of author decisions on what material to include from the archives. Incidentally, because you've previously created a Prokhorovka map, would it be possible for you to create a map of the Kozelsk offensive? I feel that the section is almost a wall of text and needs a map to explain further what was going on. If you agree I will send you an image of a Russian map with translations of words on the map attached. Kges1901 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the lines that Meltyukhov was cited for, and none of them seem contentious. All good. As for help with a map, it can take quite some time and a lot of determination not to get bored and give up, especially if I'm not already very conversant with the many tiny units jumping all over the place. I've taken note and will let you know when I get the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. As long as we don't use his work for propaganda claims (lies) about stuff like treatment of prisoners or minorities or other such topics involving value judgements, it should be fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved I did a quick check of all in-text citations that cited Glantz. Found one with an issue: "During the fighting, the corps reported 650 German soldiers killed at a cost of 350 killed and wounded." — This is not supported by the content in the specific page cited. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, it was actually from Maslov, who has pretty much all the casualty data information (probably from the archives). Kges1901 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be beneficial to do a quick check for other citations when you get the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pending People's Commissariat for Defense Directive 724486 (Stamped "Secret"), 9 May 1942 — This is a primary source that will be very difficult to access unless through a secondary source. Can't you find a secondary source to cover this? There is also another, TsAMO. EyeTruth (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TsAMO ref is to a document cited on tankfront, but no other secondary sources seem to have cared about the corps' strength on that day. The full text of the NKO order is also apparently not online, although it is referred to in some secondary sources, but not with the detail about the Moscow Armored Training Center. Kges1901 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these archival documents have not been published or are not widely available, it will be hard to say that they satisfy WP:V. These primary sources are nothing like Directive No. 21 in popularity/availability. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I make the article less detailed in order to satisfy verifiability, or is that too much of a trade? Kges1901 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to see those details stay in the article. But it's ultimately your call. In any case, I'm fully supporting if the consensus is to excuse them (although that's not very likely). EyeTruth (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider implementing a consistent citation format, in both wiki markup and rendered text; at least, with the rendered text. A few in-text citations do not link to a full description in the sources section (e.g. Drig, Yevgeny). See the WP content guideline WP:CITEVAR. EyeTruth (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I noticed that the above will be resolved once the issue of primary sources is resolved. However, in the mean time you can consider coverting the primary sources to sfn markup using {{sfnRef|}}. See Operation Barbarossa if you need examples. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: A few of the sources still have issues (see above). I support if the consensus is that those issues are insufficient to prevent promotion. This is a well-written, well-researched article. The content and sourcing, in general, are solid. Well, done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-ordinator comment: I'm closing this review now as it has been open for much longer than usual and the article seems to have more than sufficient support for promotion. Any further discussion / development can continue on the article talk page. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/15th_Tank_Corps&oldid=1075713811"