Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/51st Army (Soviet Union)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

51st Army (Soviet Union)[edit]

One of the seventy(!) rifle armies the Red Army raised during World War II. Have incorporated virtually all the comments at a recent peer review, and would be looking for either an A-class endorsement or what needs to be fixed for the article to reach A-class. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ Nice work. A few niggles, nearly all stylistic. I'm not sure about the encyclopedicfulness of "the awful Crimean debacle". The quote – Kuznetsov's 'sticking blindly to the prewar plan,' – needs a source. Personally, I prefer notes and sources separated into two sections and consistently presented: it's easier to follow somehow (and makes the article look longer!). Dates are inconsistent; sometimes 6 May, sometimes 6th May. Dates need wikilinking too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment: I think this article needs some images or other supporting materials (such an infobox). There are also few unreferenced paragraphs. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from nominator: The Kuznetsov quote was sourced at the end of the paragraph - I've now put in an addition reference. Wikilinked more dates - please tell me about any that have slipped through, and if anyone knows how to link things like 15 - 19 December or suchlike, that would be good. There is actually an infobox at the start and two tables lower down. I do not know of any images specifically showing the 51st Army, as opposed to general Red Army operations. I'll recheck the references. Thanks for the comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done a couple of missed dates, and pout the rest into consistent month/day format. It's not possible to wikilink date ranges (silly, huh?). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pouting eh? ;) Woody (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the page formats need to be consistent and some of the ref details are not filled in fully, eg raw url only. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The writing is crisp and clear and it would make a good model for military unit histories. The 'Postwar' section needs a cite for its last two sentances and the references need to be consistently formatted, but those are minor issues which can be easily fixed and this isn't an FA review. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whislt I agree with Blnguyen that those issues need fixing, I don't think it precludes it from A-Class status. Make sure you do those before taking to FAC, ask if you need help or a review. Woody (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.