Talk:390th Rifle Division/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EyeTruth (talk · contribs) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass! Issues addressed. Good article!!

Comments by EyeTruth

Hello. I read the lede and it seems like a great article. I'll commence the review soon, within a few hours or days, cheers. EyeTruth (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: Any progress on this? Kges1901 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my presence here has been spotty these past few weeks. Rest assured, this is still at the top of my priority list. EyeTruth (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

✓ Partly Resolved. Consider mentioning when the division landed in the Kerch Peninsula in both the lede and body. EyeTruth (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The exact date that the 390th landed in Crimea is unknown, however a general time period can be inferred from the duration of the 51st Army's landing.Kges1901 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the date is unknown, then don't include one that's based on a guesstimate. But I feel like it can be reworded in a way that doesn't make the sentence feel unhinged from the article's order of events. EyeTruth (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted the above. EyeTruth (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your rephrasing is fine. Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Formation

✓ Resolved. weather conditions thawed the ice and prevented the buildup of supplies for the offensive, which as a result was cancelled. When did this happen? We are talking about 16 Jan before it, but after it we jump back to 15 Jan. Therefore it's important to clarify when or at least the order of events. EyeTruth (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Resolved. The 51st Army launched an attack on 16 March, but the 390th did not moved forward until the night of 18 March in the area of Korpech village alongside the 398th Rifle Division. The assault began on the morning of 18 March, and the 390th... This whole line is confusing. Did the attack begin on the 16th or 18th? Or is it that the 390th joined in on the 18th, two days after the army began their attack? EyeTruth (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the order of events is still ambiguous. The first sentence still suggests that the 390th Div didn't join the army's assault until the night of 18 March, but the next sentences states that it joined in on the morning of the 18th

Rephrased again. Kges1901 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing changed. 390th Div still attacks hours before it was moved to the front line. Can you explain here what you're trying to say there? EyeTruth (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it didn't move to its starting positions for the attack until the 18 March and that it began its attack on the morning of 18 March. Kges1901 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what that passage currently says though: the 390th was not moved up to the front until the night of 18 March in the area of Korpech village alongside the 398th Rifle Division. Are you saying then that the division started its offensive combat in the morning while still in the rear position? That sounds problematic and leaves a reader with questions. EyeTruth (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: - I completely rewrote the sentences and added details from Sarkisyan for clarity. Kges1901 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now. Not specifying that it was the night of 17–18 March (i.e an overnight) was the source of the oddity. EyeTruth (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Unresolved. "Major M.M. Malkhasyan's 789th Regiment..." and "L.G. Akopov's 792nd Regiment..." and "S. Sargsyan..." Full names? EyeTruth (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find Akopov's full name. Sargsyan/Sarkisyan is a common Armenian surname, so finding his full name will be harder. Kges1901 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually much more helpful to have the precise names. The content guideline WP:MILMOS#PRECISE also mentions this in passing. As it is, it's of minimal value given that the Soviets fielded thousands of officers during the war, and many last names repeated. EyeTruth (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highly doubtful that it is possible to find the full names using the sources I have. I'm sure their personnel files are in TsAMO at Podolsk, though. Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Not an issue to hold this back from GA. EyeTruth (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Formation, Composition and Commanders

Looks good. EyeTruth (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Looks good. No source check or review was done (leaving that to A-list and FA). Inline citations appear sufficient. EyeTruth (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider web-archiving the webpages that you cited (excluding the books).

Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Resolved. Include access date for the cited webpages. EyeTruth (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kges1901 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Resolved. Different reference styles are used. Consider making them consistent at least in preparation for A-list and FA. EyeTruth (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Looks good. I'm no expert with image licenses, but everything appears good. EyeTruth (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remark

A great article in an area that is lacking good articles. Kges1901, I believe this is ready for A-class and possibly FA. Great work with this article and the others like it. Cheers! EyeTruth (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]