Talk:Operation Uranus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am taking my time to thoroughly review the article "Operation Uranus." A full write up will be available when I am finished. Zipline (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After going over the article with a proverbial fine-bristled comb I’ve found very few flaws. The article definitely meets, and often exceeds the GA qualifications. That said, there are a few things that I noticed:

In the 1st and 3rd paragraphs of the “Background” section “Germany” is used where “German” should be. I corrected this.
In the 1st paragraph of the “Background” section a sentence read, “The following day, the avant-garde of the Sixth Army…” I found this wording to be unusual given the context, and so changed avant-garde to vanguard.
In the 2nd paragraph of the “Background” section a sentence read, “However, there were signals of an impending Soviet offensive…” As with the last note, the wording seemed off, so I replaced “signals” with “indications.”
In the 3rd paragraph of the “Background” section there was a misplaced comma in one sentence. This was removed.
In the 2nd paragraph of the “Comparison of forces” section, under the subheading “German forces” a sentence partially reads, “…in reality these units were issued equipment largely obsolete…” I changed this to “…in reality these units were issued largely obsolete equipment….”
There were a few other removed commas and edited words but the last change I made that could affect the article in a serious way is in the 3rd paragraph of “Comparison of forces” under the subheading, “German forces.” There part of a sentence reads, “Two panzer, the elite Leibstandarte and the Grobdeutchland divisions were redeployed…” This was altered to “Two panzer divisions, the elite Leibstandarte and the Grobdeutchland were redeployed…”
I would like to note that the article only references a handful of works, and while I don’t own any of these and so cannot verify the citations, a quick search of reviews of the books and articles has turned up positive reviews for accuracy. It would be nice to see more varied sources, but it’s not a vital concern. Zipline (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick and specific review! All the changes made make sense, and I have no objections to them; making the prose easier to understand is of vital concern, and you have definitely made certain sentences much simpler and easier to read. In regards to sources, I will be receiving a new source through the mail at some point soon (within the next two weeks), and that will definitely be added to the article. Again, thank you for the review! JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. To be honest, the only quibble I really had with the article was that the sources were somewhat limited, but if you're bringing in more then there's nothing holding this back. I look forward to seeing this as a Featured Article! Zipline (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]