Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Berlin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [1].

Battle of Berlin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've overhauled it during September in order to promote it as much as possible, give that it is of top-importance. It passed an A-class review on 22 September 2008. There might be some copyediting issues which i'm willing to resolve within this nomination. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/Borderline Oppose, Hmm...looks fine to an extent, but where are the war crimes section? I notice that that over 2,000,000 German women were raped in the war, some Germans murdered soviets in cold blood and vice versa? I don't think it should go through until there is a section on it. Possibly could you split a subsection to the Aftermath? Also remove all the red links, I spotted two. Other than that I think it look acceptable for FA. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. The Battle of Berlin lasted from 16 April to 2 May, and most of the war crimes are described in the aftermath section (including footnote nb10), according to sources. The massive rapes were made after this battle (war) ended, therefore such information shouldn't be included in this article. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It seems good enough then. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 41 fixed and the web source was removed. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You can put sourcing footnotes with the ref group stuff, if you use {{#tag:ref|(footnote information)<ref>sourcing note</ref>|group=(name of notes section)}}. Yes it's a bit awkward, but it gives you nice footnotes on your footnotes!
Otherwise, Julian caught everything I would have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind doing yourself one? As i'm not very sure how to do it... --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I totally missed this over the weekend. Do you have a particular footnote you'd like me to rework? If you want to see them in action, check out Stigand. (gotta increase page count somehow!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Structurally the article is confused at best. The section "Battle outside Berlin" actually describes two separate operations that were completed before the "Battle in Berlin" begun. There is some sort of denial that it was a Soviet strategic operation, if only for the scale and strategic importance of the Berlin region economically and politically never mind for propaganda purposes, the denial being initially in not mentioning the other constituent parts of the strategic offensive. I imagine this is because the article relies for 51% of its citations on Beevor who just doesn't mention this as his book is what is known as "dramatic" military history. There are also 16 citations from Ziemke who had been shown to be biased and considerably dated as a source, along with Ryan. Eight references are not specific to the subject of the article, and in some cases just too general to be considered relevant, with snipets drawn from them to reinforce the pov of the editor. There is no map, so a novice is probably forced to use a modern map, but few geographic locations to serve this are in the text.other then Krivosheev there is no other reference to either Soviet or Russian sources, and the only German sources date from the 60s.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. This article is about the Battle of Berlin (Berlin Offensive Operation) and consists of two parts, Battle in Berlin and Battle outside Berlin (containing other small battles like Halbe and Seelow Heights). What were the other constituent parts of the strategic operation? This article relies on the best english sources available, written by one of the most respectable historians on this topic (Beevor, Glantz, Williams etc). Which other better sources do you actually propose? If we'd have sources in english by Russian authors, i'd be more than happy to use them. Do you have proof that Ziemke and Ryan are biased, or maybe I should cite User:mrg3105 when removing them? Which certain "eight references" are not specific to the subject of the article? Actually there are quite many geographic locations, would like me to count them for you? In a FAC you are supposed to make suggestions for improvement, not to criticise the article in a biased way. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to think that there are 3 major sections to this article. The first is the initial assault on the Oder-Neisse lines and the encirclement of Berlin (the battle up to 24/25th). There are then two/three further battles. The fighting in Berlin, and the fighting outside Berlin, which can be further divided into fighting North and South of Berlin. Because the Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front was not directly involved the fighting to capture the centre of Berlin but in capturing the territory North of Berlin, and to the south of Berlin, the battle of Halbe, and counter attack at Potsdam both south were not directly part of either of those conflicts and after the successful initial phase of the battle when Soviet forces invested the city, it again makes sense to have the sections that we do. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave reasons to why I object to the promotion of the article to a higher quality grade.
Which part of my opposing statement did you consider biased?
That you even suggest the "battle" consisted of only two "parts" is a confirmation of the poor quality of the sources used. Above all it was a strategic envelopment of the Berlin region. This included many sub-operations. Have you looked at maps? Chris Bishop put out a military history atlas recently that has the operation on page 95. He clearly whows the 2-4 defensive lines that had to be breached before Red Army reached the Seelow Heights position, the one similar defensive line on the outskirts of northern Berlin, and two such lines to the south.
Its not about having many geographical references, but the right references. Bucholz was a major source of frustration for Zhukov and Konev, but it is not in the article! The need to cut the Wittenberg line was an operational objective to complete encirclement, but that is not there either. The 17th Army counter-attack at Konigswartha is not there. Spremberg and Torgau were 1st Ukranian Front strategic objectives, not just a nice place to meet the US Army for the later.
Battle outside Berlin begins with Wenck's counter-attack to reach Berlin at its virtual conclusion!
Glantz is only used for 4 citations related to statistics. Williams' book is about "Presents a story of the Allied struggle for survival told through the voices of the British, American and German soldiers who were there." The very objective you state in the article was to deny Western Allied the ability to participate in the encirclement and taking of Berlin, so how good a source can he be?
Actually we are not limited to English sources, so why not use Russian and German sources?
Yes, you can cite me for removing Ziemke and Ryan. They are the cause of what is described in The myth of the Eastern Front. The reason John Erickson wrote his Road to Stalingrad and Road to Berlin is to "update" and give some less biased perspective on the Ziemke's Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East with Magna Bauer, and Stalingrad to Berlin. The particular work you used is heavily illustrated with pictures and maps, but is in fact a reduction of US Army understanding of what happened from those Germans who managed to escape the encirclement. It is just flawed if only because of the association he had with the translation of Keitel's memoirs what were written during the war as a justification of the German war. Cornelius Ryan was a journalist. This is why his books were good to make movies from. His depiction of the Red Army was highly controversial and still is.
My suggestion for improvement is to go back to the "drawing board"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that Antony Beevor is also an extremely biased and unreliable source. He overplays German successes, Soviet deficiencies and Soviet warcrimes (which were, nonetheless, horrible). JonCatalán(Talk) 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan I think neither you, I or any other person on wikipedia is in the position to categorize Antony Beevor as extremely biased and unreliable. Citing from Antony Beevor article: His best known works, the bestselling Stalingrad and Berlin - The Downfall 1945 recount the World War II battles between the Soviet Union and Germany. They have been praised for their vivid, compelling style, their treatment of the ordinary lives of combatants and civilians and the use of newly disclosed documents from Soviet archives.[1] [2] [3] Beevor's works have been used as sources and credited as such in many recent documentary films about WWII. You can also have a look at the awards he won with this book as well as others. So if you say Beevor is unreliable, you have to come with serious sources that contradict his statements in the book. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should be able to. I consider myself a well read amateur historian of the Second World War and have read quite a bit of different books on the Battle of Berlin (I also own three books on the Second World War by Beevor, and his book on the Spanish Civil War). Furthermore, I've had the treat of reading reviews of his books not published by himself (on his own books). You can praise Beevor with quotes from his own book, all you want, but it doesn't really speak for his reliability. He is a well known anti-Communist, and he is biased towards the Germans. He overstates German feats, and downgrades the Soviet role. It's something which is easier to catch when you compare him to David M. Glantz, who is in general a superior historian. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make clear that I am not opposing the article on grounds of the source, since I think that's unfair. Beevor's book is slightly biased, but it can be referenced accurately. It's mostly the tone he takes in the book, which can be extrapolated for a Wikipedia article without major impact. I am simply saying that there are better sources which exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beevor's books have received awards, but his style is "dramatic" which is not suitable for use in reference works. Despite being a former officer, Beevor really fails to understand the strategic, operational and tactical aspects of the "battles" he describes, at least in Stalingrad and Berlin. In fact I could see how he would get an award for Stalingrad at the time it was printed, so have only read the Berlin book borrowed from the library. My impression was confirmed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Catalan said, even if Beevor's style is a bit dramatic, we can use his book in order to reference accurately - just look at the end of the book to see how many Soviet archives and historians he cites. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"snipets [sic] drawn from them to reinforce the pov of the editor" - please assume good faith, mrg3105. Thank you. Biruitorul Talk 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it is currently a neutral article? Glantz gives Stettin-Rostock Offensive, Seelow-Berlin Offensive, Cottbus-Potsdam Offensive, Spremberg-Torgau Offensive and Brandenberg-Ratenow Offensive operations as being part of the strategy of encircling and talking Berlin, with the battle for Berlin being a separate operation. These included breaching of at least seven defensive lines and reduction of Bucholtz by forces from two Fronts. Instead only the Order-Niesse and Seelow heights are given as important parts of the whole, and the rest is reduced to seeming triviality. Surely for a Soviet operation it should present something of the Soviet point of view, planning and execution, and not predominantly German defensive measures and perspective? Just consider the title of Erickson's book the Road to Berlin. That city was the culmination of 4.5 years of fighting from the very gates of Moscow.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have a valid point, but the way you say something is important. Had you merely said the Soviet perspective should receive more weight, that would have been fine. It's when you accuse the author (a project coordinator and widely-respected editor) of using the encyclopedia to advance his own agenda or "pov" is when problems start to appear. Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify then. I expect authors/editors to have a point of view, because if they don't have one, they have not read and understood any sources on the subject. Its the presentation of their point of view, and how these are supported by sources that is the issue. Unlike some in Wikipedia, I actually know that a human being is incapable of being completely neutral. This, is why there is a principle of "consensus" where points of view of several editors supported by diverse sources are compared to arrive at a neutral article content. An article is the inanimate body of information incapable of presenting a point of view; behind every book, there is an author. The point is neutrality requires collaboration based in diversity--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/Borderline Oppose - Going through it now, I'm finding some problems, especially in terms if prose. I'm still going through it, but examples include:

  • 'A Soviet war correspondent gave this account, in the zealous style of World War Two Russian journalism, of an important event that day—the capital was now within range of field artillery' - 'Zealous style'? Sounds rather WP:PEACOCK to me.
  • The 'Battle Outside Berlin' section could do with some expanding as well - it seems to skip over a lot of events. Now, admittedly I'm no expert, but I still think it needs to mention more. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'However, the Soviet forces led by Zhukov eventually broke through the defensive positions, having suffered about 30,000 casualties, while the Germans lost only 12,000 personnel' - I think the 'only' should be removed.
  • 'One powerful thrust by Gordov's 3rd Guards Army and Rybalko's 3rd and Lelyushenko's 4th guards tank armies' - Capitalize the lower-case 'guards' there. I'm also wary of 'powerful thrust' and wouldn't mind seeing it removed as Peacock again.
What do you think 'Battle outside Berlin' is missing? In my opinion, every battle, units and troops movement are covered according to sources. All your other issues have been resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose - There are serious licencing issues regarding the first few images, which have depreciated Russian licence tag Fasach Nua (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced copyright tags where I thought it was necessary. Have a look again. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because of the overwhelming forces that the Red Army deployed it makes sense in most of the article to mention Soviet Units sizes considerbaly larger than the opposing German force, Eg a German division defending against a army of Red Army. For the initial part of the battle and the Battle in Berlin, I think this is done reasonably well. But in the section the Battle outside Berlin, there are problems. I originally knocked up the text intending it to be expanded until the detail could be moved into a subsiduary article similar to that of Battle in Berlin. Because it is only an outline many of the sentences are not complete and carry a potential POV. For example take the sentence:

Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army made a fighting retreat back towards the Elbe and American lines after providing the IX Army survivors with surplus transport.

It could have equally have been written:

Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army was forced back away from Berlin along its communications lines by the 4th(?) Guards Tank Army where rather than capitulate to the Soviets many including Wenck crossed the Elbe and surrendered to the Americans. (I got the 4th from a sentence someone added the the Battle of Halbe article "Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10km away from the German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe." but unfortunately they did did not source it.)

But at the time I wrote it I was using references that tend to look at things from a German perspective, and there was not a lot of detail on whether which Soviet units (at Army level) were involved and if the Soviets were intentionally just trying to drive the German XII army away from Berlin or were trying to envelop them before most could reach American lines. It is the same for the Battle North of Berlin. For example were the Soviets trying to reach Denmark before the British did and were they trying to envelop the German III Panzer Army and the German XXI Army or did they plan to drive them West towards the British? A sentence on the fate of Nazi Felix Steiner would be nice to have (so much for joining the Nazi Götterdämmerung in Berlin) as would a couple of sentences on the Soviets capture of the physical headquarters of OKH and OKW which were at Zossen, did most of the staff get away to new headquarters and continue to operate up until the end of the war, (if so where?), or did the staff organisation disintegrate with every man for himself or was it a bit of both? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: MoS breach in the linking of everyday words. "Siege", "committed suicide", et al. and repeated links "East Prussia" etc, (needs audit throughout on both counts). Unsure why "Berlin" needs to be linked separately (multiple times), since there are so many Berlin-related links already that are more valuable and will lead themselves to "Berlin". Why link "(army groups)" when you've already linked "Fronts" as a specific Soviet organisational army group? Why link "Russian language" right at the opening? It's an ugly sea of blue, so please take steps to minimise the dilution of your many valuable links. Tony (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at the long lead, removing low-value links, making other corrections, and adding a few inline queries. I don't think it's ready for nomination, let alone promotion. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Berlin/archive1&oldid=1138522545"