Talk:Tallinn offensive/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dodo19 (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, were to begin?

1. Well-written?

a) the prose is neither clear nor grammatically correct

Frankly, article is in desperate need of proof reading and copy editing. Some sentences just don't make sense, others are so long, you have to read them several times to understand their meaning. If you're lucky.

• Care to bring any examples? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How about the lead section? First sentence: can an offensive capture anything? Wasn't it the Red Army. As I understand, the Tallinn offensive was a strategic operation by the Red Army's Leningrad Front against German forces of Army Group North in Estonia. Why not say so? Next: on refers to a single day, from Xy till Yx would be more appropriate, for the operation lasted several days. Then: Operation Aster, as I understand, was the German evacuation of Estonia, thus it was a reaction to the offensive, not vice versa. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have corrected it now at my best abilities. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have done some additional copy edits as well. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate

There are a hell of a lot of sources mentioned , most of them seem to fall under WP:RS. But I am more worried about the sources not mentioned. I do not have access to Hiio's article at the moment, but Mitcham is misquoted each and every time.

• You might want to be more concrete on which sources are not mentioned. The editor who inserted the Mitcham's citations appears to be inactive now. If you have access to the book, it would be good to know, what is incorrectly cited. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was wondering whether Volume VIII of Germany and the Second World War would already be available, but unfortunately not. There is a chapter on the retreat from Estonia from the German perspective (in the German edition). Apart from that, you can access Mitcham on Google book search. But for the Soviet view I would recommend John Erickson's The Road to Berlin, from page 413. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think I get access to Erickson. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(c) it might contain original research

It refers to unpublished data from the Estonian Archive in Lakewood, NJ which sounds pretty much like OR to me.

• I removed the citation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about Estonia is actually incorrect. The Soviet troops might have had plans to drive Nazis out of Estonia, but operation Aster had in mind the evacuation of german troops ONLY from Estonian continental areas. Islands Saaremaa and Hiiumaa remained under control of Germany. Melilac (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

(a) it does not addresses the main aspects of the topic

This is the German evacuation of Estonia we are talking, not the history of a short-lifed Estonian government. What were the Soviet intentions (apart from conquering Estonia)? What were the German plans? What were the strategic implications?

• The short-lived government is a notable event in direct connection with the campaign. The Stavka was extremely secretive about its plans, so the statement in the lead: "The Soviet Leningrad Front and the Baltic Fleet attempted to capture of Estonia and its capital Tallinn from the German Army Detachment "Narwa" and the pro-independence Estonian units," is pretty much all we can find in second-hand sources. We also know that with Finland shifting to the Soviet side and thus opening the Baltic Sea to the Baltic fleet, Tallinn lost its strategical importance (while it had some propagandistic importance as the capital of an SSR), so there is not much to tell about the implications. We know more about German plans, but a detailed description of them would make the article biased next to the little we know about the Soviet plans.
  • I don't see a problem of bias, if that is what we know - or can know. It wouldn't make sense not to include information on one side, because we don't have an equal amount on the other side. German intentions (i.e. Hitler's) were to defend the Baltic states to the last man, the General Staff meanwhile prepared plan for evacuation. The Soviet intentions were to do to Army Group North what they had done to Army Group Center before. That's all part of the strategic implications of the Soviet offensive. Finland e.g. is not mentioned at all.--Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll write the German objectives section, but I still need a source for more detail in Soviet intentions. Finland had nothing to do with the campaign. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(b) it does not stay focused on the topic but is going into unnecessary detail

Platoon-sized operations are not really of any interest when an army group is effectively abandoning a whole sector of the front.

• The Soviet historiography considered the conquest of Tallinn notable enough to warrant a monument to the men perished in the battles with every one of the names carved on a separate stone. The soldiers and the battles have received great attention in connection with the relocation of the monument and the ashes of the soldiers in 2007. However, I agree, it is not due to the military importance of the operations but the political significance attributed to it by the Soviet propaganda, continued by the Russian government. I just felt if the article completely omitted the battles it would be ignoring a notable event. I may have been wrong. I have now deleted information on single platoon-sized battles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not make it a separate article then? But if you switch the perspective from an army detachment to a platoon, it's getting a bit confusing. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• As I said, I don't feel they should be there and I have deleted the info on the battles. Is it OK? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

The article is certainly not anti-Estonian. Apart from that, I don't know.

• As a reviewer, I guess you will have to make up your mind eventually. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Eventually --Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is happening, it has been over a month since the last comment on this review page? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA failed

I have failed the article today, because it does not meet the broad coverage criteria. Most notably Operation Aster, the German evacuation of Estonia is covered merely in a few sentences. --Dodo19 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The review is perhaps the most inadequate statement I've come across on Wikipedia. Operation Aster was the evacuation of the Army Group North from mainland Estonia. The design of the operation is outlined in detail ("German objectives"). The conduct ("Operations") is comprehensively described (I could count more than twenty sentences considering the German operations; how on earth could you miss these to get "merely a few sentences"?) and so are the outcomes ("Outcomes"). If you are unhappy about the article then better present the real causes. Otherwise this is going for a reassessment. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)