Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Barbarossa

< 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Barbarossa edit

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!)

Operation Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I want to see it reach FA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments -- I don't know if I'll be able to post a full review here but on a quick glance:

  • No dablinks according to the toolbox checker (no action req'd).
  • I see several harv errors; you can install this script to view them.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It usually means inconsistencies in your referencing -- install the script and find out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I did a few of these for you. There are still a few left, though. The script can be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • The lede is confusing. It jumps around from topic to topic in single paras, repeats itself, and doesn't seem to follow any plan in terms of being chronological or explanatory. Suggestion: basic intro describing entire concept, para on reasons/background/planning, para on forces and initial success, para on the problems in the winter/bogging down, concluding statement as it is.
I moved things around. Did it get better? EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Barbarossa ever "end"? I know the term covers "the invasion", but isn't it correct to say that it ended in the winter with the counterattacks? If so, this would be useful in the lede.
It wasn't specifically called off, but it did end, because the operation was abandoned. The offensive was defeated before most of the goals outlined in Directive 21 could be achieved. And effort towards most of those goals were suspended indefinitely. It's akin to the outcome of Operation Brunswick, which was never specifically called off, but clearly ended with the German defeat at Stalingrad. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map immediately following the lede purports to show the Nazi's anti-slavic policies, including Norway and Sweden, but not Finland. I'm certainly no expert on this, but I don't think they gave a hoot about Scandanavia - is it even mentioned in Mein Kamf? The text beside it certainly doesn't mention it, nor does the invasion plans section.
I noticed the map didn't include any of the Axis nations and co-belligerents. Also, Hitler's ultimate enemy were the Slavs. The map was modelled after this ONE. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German invasion plans" jumps around chronologically, and I think would be improved if it was laid out that way. Currently it goes summer, december, unrelated essay (should be in previous section?), autumn.
  • "German military planners" should be in the planning section?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the Soviet High" should be separate para?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The importance of the delay" should be separate para?
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "153 divisions for Barbarossa, which included 138 divisions" I'm not completely sure I understand the distinction here, a little extra text would be helpful.
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "German preparations" section also seems to be in need of a moving-about to make it read more linearly, especially the entire bit on the delay, which seems should be at the bottom.
  • Perhaps mention where Luftflotte 3 was? Or not.
It was in France and the Low Countries, because Britain was still a significant target up till late 1941. Not sure if that deserves a mention. No? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, doesn't deserve mention. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But during Stalin's Great Purge", I'm not sure this is a "but", as the para before it doesn't really lead into this one.
  • Am I incorrect in believing that the Purge was instigated, to some degree, by Germany?
"Instigated" wouldn't be the correct characterization. Stalin was extremely paranoid, and the accusations layered on the incarcerated officers were often related to spying for Nazi Germany. Most of the evidence brought against these officers are now known to have been concocted by Stalin's cronies, but others are still debated. Because in some cases, the Germans took advantage of the situation and leaked falsified evidence that only helped seal the fate of the officers, e.g. Mikail Tukachevsky. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soviet preparations" generally has the same problem as the other sections, as it jumps around from date to date. Some of it seems best put into earlier sections entirely. Generally, any text that doesn't involved actual preparations probably shouldn't be in this section.
  • "most of which were still seriously understrength, but it was undetected by German intelligence" confusing statement, and probably should be elsewhere.
Hopefully alleviated the difficult read by splitting the unwieldy sentence in two. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at "Invasion" for now. From what I have seen so far though, this article needs a lot of copyediting. Mostly the issue is simply re-organization to make it read more linearly, but it does seem that it would not suffer from the removal of perhaps 15 to 20% of the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:V isn't met

  • Given the discussion on the article's talk page, it's disappointing that the article still repeatedly references TV documentaries. Given the vast and high quality literature on this topic, there's no need to use such low quality sources.
  • Moreover, the many references to the documentaries aren't even very useful - they simply point to the entire episode, instead of the point at which the claim appears.
  • Some of the references to book page ranges are also overly broad. For instance, Glantz 2012, p. 290-303 and Thomas 2012, pp. 12–14. are each cited seven times, and there are other instances of this. It's unlikely that these page ranges are needed on each and every occasion.
  • What makes http://ww2stats.com/ a reliable source? There seems to be no information on who created and maintained the site, and its content appears to be primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - @WP:MILHIST coordinators: this looks to me to be a candidate for a quickfail. There is a huge amount of high quality academic material on this subject. TV doco's and a non-RS website just don't meet the standard of citations needed at Milhist ACR. I agree with Nick's comment regarding some sources not being verifiable. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Nick above. --Molestash (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've actioned the quickfail suggestion above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2015 (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/Operation_Barbarossa&oldid=673097013"