Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Kharkov/archive1

Second Battle of Kharkov

Self-nom. This article failed its previous FAC because of quite legitimate, yet not major, reasons. Following a major overhaul, a lot of points were taken care of.

References were expanded (more books used) and a lot of inline citations added.
A map of the offensive was drawn.
The lead was expanded
The conclusion section was dealt with its possibly POV points.

I think this article deserves an FA star. Comments? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article; all the issues raised in the peer review have been addressed. Kirill Lokshin 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support easily now that everything has been nicely fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Needs proof-reading by an uninformed reader and explanation of some of the difficult terms. What is Stavka? What is Izium salient? Also, pic captions could be extended to include not only the names of the people, but also a brief mention of why are their pics there. Finally, could do with some more sources from the outside world. Don't get me wrong, but the article seems to be written almost entirely with books by three of the Soviet commanders, which is quite one-sided. Some on-line sources could also be nice, but it's just a wish, the "term explanation" is the basis here. //Halibu tt 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response The article is written using primarily two Western books (Beevor and Glantz) and two Soviet (Moskalenko and Zhukov). Anyway, since the battle was a Soviet defeat, I don't see nothing wrong with using Soviet sources, since the bottom line of all three books is "yes, we got owned big time by the Wehrmacht, and it's our fault". Propaganda does not matter here. I know you don't like Soviet Union Halibutt, but you should admit they sometimes go beyond propaganda.

As for captions and explanations, I'm going to take care of that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added a pic to illustrate what the Izium Salient is and added an explanation for Stavka (it was already there but I made it simpler).

As for sources, I insist that a) They're mixed and b) Most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side. And since the most interesting aspect of the battle is actually centered on psychology, the sources can only come from people who oversaw the operation at Stavka. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ==Conclusions== needs to be reworked. The big quote could probably be cut down and/or summarized. However, my biggest issue is with the phrase "the truth is". Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth The wording throughout the section needs to be changed to make it more clear who is drawing these conclusions. Currently, it reads like the conclusion of a paper on the battle, not an encyclopedia article. - The Catfish 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you're quite right. Wasn't me... :( Anyway, I reworked the conclusion section by summarizing Zhukov's quote and by rearranging a few thing. Tell me what you think please! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, though I have one last question before I strike my objection. Is this this the only significant interpretation of the events, or are there other notable interpretations? Do the western sources (not cited in this section) have a different view? I ask merely becuase I am not very familiar with the subject. If there truly are no competing views, consider my objection struck. - The Catfish 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was a stinging defeat for the Soviet Army, there can be no doubt about that. You will note that the article uses Western authors, too.

I daresay that in these books, Russian commanders make (a rare thing, but still) a honest analysis of the situation, recognizing their own defeats. Starting from that, the risk of POV and propaganda is almost non-existent, since even Stalin censorship could not transform a defeat into victory. And to top it off, most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side.

As I said to Halibutt, the main interest of this battle is psychological, involving dangers of armchair generalship and interference between propaganda and military. And I daresay there is no better view sources than those used for this article.

Hope I managed to convince you :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I meant that the Western authors should be cited under ==Conclusions== if they had a different point of view about the causes and effects of the defeat. I was not refering to the rest of the article, where, as you say, you used both Russian and Western sources. So, since I'm still not quite clear, do Western historians have a different view of the causes and effects of the battle than the Russians? If so, please add their interpretations in. If not, maybe cite them as well to emphasize that the view in the section is widely held. - The Catfish 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not fundamentally, but in my opinion the article is not there yet. I think a lot needs to be added in terms of the conflict between Soviet command levels, and I think at the moment the conclusion is far too generous on the Red Army's performance. I strongly recommend the use of Ziemke for the German side and Erickson for the Soviet side for this article, to improve it further. Also Bagramyan's memoirs, since he was Chief of Staff to Timoshenko, IIRC. If I did not have my books in storage I would add things myself. Andreas 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Although mostly written well, there is not much on the Germans as the article reads as if it is written strictly to cover the Soviet perspective. Entire article should be written to give both sides equal time or as close as possible. Tombseye 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]