Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bautzen (1945)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bautzen (1945)[edit]

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me


A very recent GA of mine, I think it is A-class as well. It had recent copyediting, everything is reliably cited, should be comprehensive, and we even have maps. Ok, Polish maps, but new and freely licensed, and if somebody has skills to localize them into English, I can gladly provide translation assistance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Enjoyed reading it. A few minor comments:
  • The sections in brackets in the lead (e.g. " (despite the heavy casualties, the Polish–Soviet frontline was not seriously breached)," could easily be rewritten without the brackets, which would make the flow easier. (I can help reword if you need me to).
  • " It is also sometimes called the last successful German tank operation of World War II." - I know its the lead, but you may want to explain who calls it this (e.g. "historians" etc.)
  • Background - this section could helpfully explain which bit of the war we're in. (e.g. "At the end of the Second World War...") At the moment it assumes quite a lot of knowledge by the typical reader.
  • "according to Komornicki," - always worth explaining who people are when you do this (e.g. "according to the historian Komornicki...")
  • "Overall, the German units were less numerous than the Polish forces..." - less numerous (i.e. they had x regiments, the Polish had more than x regiments), or did they have less men, or both? This is important, as unit sizes varied considerably by the end of the war.
  • "They also succeeded to free the surrounded forces in Bautzen and this "victory" was trumpeted by German propaganda in an attempt to strengthen the German will to hold out. Bautzen and large parts of Saxony remained in German hands until the end of the war." - lacks a reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed minor issues. The unreferenced claims come mostly from an addition by another editor which I missed till now ([1]); I asked him to add inline citations. If any German speaker would like to help with that, please do; I cannot and if the editor in question does not answer I may have to move all of his additions to talk. This would be a shame, as the German historiographical perspective is valuable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments/suggestions: interesting article, here are some suggestions:
    • in the infobox: "6,500 according to contemporary Polish sources" (6,500 killed, or killed and wounded? If the sources don't say, perhaps just say "6,500 casualties");
    • in the lead (and also in Opposing forces section): "form of the remnants of the 4th Panzer and 17th armies on the other..." ("armies" should probably be capitalised here, as it is part of a proper noun);
    • in the lead: "situated primarily along the Bautzen-Niesky line" (the hyphen here should probably be an endash);
    • in the lead: "Combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26. Isolated engagements took place until April 30". This is slightly confusing, perhaps tweak slightly: "Major combat began on April 21, 1945, and continued until April 26 although isolated engagements continued to take place until April 30."
    • in the Opposing forces section: "and the 600th Infantry Division (of the Russian Liberation Army) - around 50,000 men" (the hypen should probably be an endash);
    • in the Polish retreat section: "however, 9th remained near Dresden" (probably needs "the" before "9th");
    • in the Polish retreat section: "Świerczewski for a while was out of communication with his superiors". This might sound smoother as: "For a while Świerczewski was out of communication with his superiors..."
    • in the Polish retreat section: "line Kamenz-Kuckau-north Bautzen-Spree-Spreewiese-Heideanger" (the hyphens probably should be endashes);
    • as per above here: "forming a line toward Kamenz-Doberschütz-Dauban";
    • there is some date format inconsistency, for instance "21–30 April 1945" (in the infobox) and "24 April" (in the Polish retreat section), but also "April 17" (in Background), "April 21" (in lead), etc. It should probably be consistent;
    • in the Notes there are three different date formats used: "April 15, 1945", "15.4.1945" and "20 April";
    • there might be an English variation issue: for instance use of "kilometres" (British English) and "armoured" (British English), but "Mechanized", "armored" and "stabilize" (US English);
    • in the Notes section: "Wawer and Solak are certainly mistaken in the case of the 2nd SS Panzer Division". Is this a Wiki editor's interpretation, or is there a source for this? I think it might need a citation;
    • "Army Group Center", but also "Army Group Centre" (inconsistent spelling);
    • watch out for overlink "Army Group Center" is linked in the Background section, but then in Opposing forces "Army Group Center" is linked. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most issues fixed. Can somebody with a dash script run it and fix the dashes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed so I've added my support. Good work. Thank you for your contribution to the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [2].
    • External links all check out [3] (no action required).
    • Images all have Alt Text [4] (no action required).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals one error:
      • Ahlfen, p. 208 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
    • Prose here: "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front in World War II...", consider instead "The Battle of Bautzen (or Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945) was one of the last battles of the Eastern Front during World War II." (suggestion only)
    • Missing word here I think: "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive...", consider instead "The battle took place during Ivan Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front push toward Berlin, which was part of the larger Soviet Berlin Offensive."
    • Missing word here: "Polish historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "Polish historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
    • "General Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army...", should be "Świerczewski, commander of the 2nd Army..." removing rank at second use following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
    • Tense here: "The events of April 21 mark the beginning of this battle...", consider "The events of April 21 marked the beginning of this battle."
    • Are these redlinks correct: "Soviet 14th and Soviet 95th Guards Rifle"? Rifle what? Division? Corps? I think there might be a word missing here.
    • Is this a typo: "The Soviet 294th Rifle Rivision was encircled..."? Should this be Soviet 294th Rifle Division?
    • Prose here: "Bronikowski then lost no time and ordered an attack into Bautzen immediately...", consider instead "Bronikowski then lost no time and immediately ordered an attack into Bautzen."
    • "...they also secured a road to Königswartha...", would this work better as "...they also secured the road to Königswartha..."?
    • Grammer here: "...the remaining personnel was merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division", this should be "...the remaining personnel were merged into the Soviet 19th Guards Rifle Division."
    • "...on the raging battle in Berlin...", perhaps instead "...on the battle raging in Berlin..."
    • Missing word here: "The historiography during People's Republic of Poland portrayed...", consider "The historiography during the People's Republic of Poland portrayed..."
    • "...critical of General Świerczewski's command, blaming...", should be "...critical of Świerczewski's command, blaming..." per WP:SURNAME.
    • This is unclear to me: "...could have been such that he commanded the battle while drunk...", perhaps instead "...could have been because he commanded the battle while drunk..." (or something similar).
    • Citations seem inconsistent to me. In some you use short citations (e.g. Ahlfen, p. 208) and in others more detailed citations (e.g. John Erickson (10 June 1999). The road to Berlin. Yale University Press. p. 591. ISBN 978-0-300-07813-8. Retrieved 11 May 2011.). Probably best to be consistent. Consider formating per the guidance in WP:CITESHORT? Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Issues addressed, but for the last one. Other editors have added refernnces since and they don't seem to want to respect previous standards. Frankly, I am sorry, but I don't really want to fix their mess time and again (see Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)#unreferenced_additions_re_German_historiography for example). If you could, please identify who added those references and ask them to fix the style - I'd appreciate it very much (and perhaps if you were to ask, they would realize it is not just me bugging them all the time). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello again Piotr. Those changes look good to me. Regarding the references: I know its a little painful but you might just need to do this yourself, I'd give it a go but I really have no knowledge of the sources used and do not want to introduce inaccuracies. Happy with you using the long citation format (although I personnaly prefer short citations), just as long as they are used consistently. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could have simply asked us on the article talkpage, instead of complaining on other pages about that other editors dont use your citation style. StoneProphet (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks gentlemen. All my comments have been addressed so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sources (mostly tune ups prior to FAC, none opposeable) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated your "Further reading" to the same template format as your body, similarly a minor fix on one parameter displaying incorrectly
    • My edition (the edition linked to) shows Frank Cass as the publisher? "Aleksander A. Maslov; David M. Glantz (30 September 1998). Fallen Soviet generals: Soviet general officers killed in battle, 1941–1945. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7146-4790-6. Retrieved 12 May 2011."
    • "Ministry of National Defense Pub" You may need to specify which nation's prior to FAC
    • Obviously if taking this to FAC you'd need to double check all the publishers and locations, as these don't meet the FAC consistency requirement yet
    • You may have problems with FAC with the level of reliance on a history newspaper, polska-zbrojna, and the HQRS requirement. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose
  • You've got some significant support already, but I'm not really ready to support an article with 49 citations from a single web page (polska-zbrojna.pl), which doesn't look like a reliable source to me. And since its in Polish (did you translate it?) its more problematic to review. Combine that with Poles in the battle of Berlin and you have over 50% of your citations from two sources.
  • You have some of your 'further information' sources in the references section already. Did you copy the further information section from the German Wikipedia article?
  • I would also add some translations of the book titles in the references.
    • Added Polish translations. German ones should likely be done by a German speaker]
  • The translation of "It was one of the most bloody battles that the Polish Army had ever been involved in." need some copy editing, but its at least cited. For starters, please review the List of battles by casualties article and reword 'most bloody battle(s)' to something more factual. Kirk (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure I understand your point here. I am simply repeating the claim per sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Getting back to my first point, its cited from a source with no references, so we have no way of verifying if its true or not. And what's his definition of 'bloody' battle is - is it another way of saying 'casualties', is it a total number, a percentage, etc.? What was the second most bloody battle of the Polish Army? Kirk (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)/archive1&oldid=1089907589"