Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Winter Storm/archive1

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 19:56, January 13, 2009

Oops, sorry about that; it didn't hit me when I added the reference (I was busy trying to extrapolate information provided by the owner of the book on the article's talk page). Should be added now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article looks good now. Xclamation point 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment While the article is well-written and referenced, and impressive in its detail for a relatively short article given its subject (which is no criticism), it fails to drive home the importance of this battle. The failure of this operation effectively doomed the Sixth Army, did it not? I think this campaign should be placed in greater context, and a top-level view given of its importance to the Eastern Front and war as a whole. A sentence or two in the intro and the same or a short paragraph at the conclusion would tell the reader why this battle is important. To put it more bluntly: Should we care about this battle? We should-- tell us why.

I was thinking about that, but when I was trying to implement the paragraph it was difficult without reiterating what was already said before. The failure of the operation had as much to do with the lack of strength to break the encirclement as with the Sixth Army's refusal to breakout. This is mentioned in the article. So, while the failure of the offensive did play a part in the ultimate destruction of the Sixth Army, it was the Sixth Army's refusal itself which had a major impact. This is stated in the article, although I guess it would make sense to put it in the lead (which I will). JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could take out some of the detail in the lead. It need not be simply a summary of the article; it should draw the reader in.

I'd also add something to the conclusion, even if it is something to the effect that the failure of this operation, coupled with the Sixth Army's (Paulus'?) refusal to attempt to break out to meet the spearhead, effectively ended large-scale ground efforts to break out of Stalingrad. This led to the Sixth Army's eventual surrender, and the loss of all German gains (of 1942? east of the Donets?) on the southern part of the eastern front-- whatever works. Stalingrad is commonly recognized as a German catastrophe and a turning point; this operation should be put in that context. It is an excellent article but needs a little more for the average reader.

Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, on the other hand, I don't think this article should state anything about the end of the Stalingrad operations and the beginning of the Soviet drive westwards; that should be reserved for the Stalingrad article. Soviet operations to the West are irrelevant to this, really, and so there shouldn't be a lot of detail about that. Perhaps in the Little Saturn article (once I write it), but not in the Winter Storm article. Not a lot of conclusions should be made here, especially since a lot of these conclusions are not explicitly supported by sources (they are, in effect, original research). JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the significance of this operation cannot be related to later developments. (See

Kablammo (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I added another paragraph to "aftermath", which gives some details on the future of the Sixth Army. It also adds a sentence about the interesting perspective that the encirclement tied down a large number of Soviet troops, jeopardizing their later offensives. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. This looks promising, and it is a great read! However, I rapidly found many prose issues that need the attention of a fresh copyeditor. Please get someone to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and clean up the sentence structure, grammar, and so on. I don't believe this should be attempted within the timeframe of this nomination.
  • "As the Red Army continued to build up strength ..." Would "build strength" change the meaning? If not, never use a word you don't need.
  • "Due to the reluctance to weaken certain sectors ..." This sentence is much too long—one forgets the beginning before making it to the end. Also, whose reluctance?
  • "The German force would be pitted against an array of Soviet armies ..." The clauses here are not grammatically correct. Take out the clause in the middle and we're left with something that doesn't even make sense.
  • Minor grammar issues spotted easily (ex. "Although ultimately German forces took ..." and "Due to the failure of the Sixth Army to breakout and the attempt to break the Soviet encirclement ...")
  • Comma use is all over the map, and long sentences are strung together oddly.
  • Passive voice obscures or eliminates subjects (ex. "Instead of attempting an immediate breakout, it was decided that the trapped forces ...")
  • A lot of wordiness contributes to the sentence length problems (ex. "Many of the aircraft were hardly serviceable in the rough weather of the Soviet winter ..." could be "the rough Soviet winter")

--Laser brain (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the current velocity of the nomination process, and the two supports, I believe that this can be solved within the supposed "timeframe". Will get on it. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, please withdraw this nomination. Hopefully, I'll be taking a wikibreak for the month of February and what remains of January. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.