Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Battle of Kharkov

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:41, 15 November 2008 [1].

Third Battle of Kharkov

edit
Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

The Third Battle of Kharkov was a German counteroffensive in Southern Russia, which took place between 19 February and 15 March. This article was developed over a series of weeks, and this included a good article review and an A-class review. I believe that the article meets the requirements for featured article status, and it was copyedited (slightly) by Roger Davies, and received further copyediting during the A-class review. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed now. There was only reference with a single p, if it was covering multiple pages. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Query is Zaporizhia the Zaporozhe of your article? Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it; a poor transliteration of the Russian from my sources, or perhaps how the Germans referred to it. I will change it to that. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks pretty good for the most part. Some comments from the first section:
  • On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army surrendered to the Red Army, costing the Wehrmacht an estimated 90,000 men captured. - Is there a better way to word that?
  • Throughout 1942 German casualties totaled around 1.9 million personnel,[8] and by the start of 1943 the Wehrmacht was around 470,000 men below full strength, on the Eastern Front. - Remove "personnel"?
  • For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German-Soviet front, most of which were older designs such as the Panzer IV and Panzer III. - "German-Soviet" should be an endash.
  • In comparison, at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa the Wehrmacht was equipped with around 3,300 tanks. - Add a comma after "Barbarossa".
  • This opened a 60–kilometer breech between these two German forces, shortly to be exploited by Rokossovsky's offensive. - Change the endash to a hyphen. Also, 60-km needs a {{convert}}}.
  • In some instances, you say "on the 25 January", while on others, simply "on 16 February".
  • On the other hand, the Soviet 2nd Tank Army had successfully penetrated 160 kilometers into the German rear, along the left flank of the Soviet offensive, increasing the length of the army's flank by an estimated 100 kilometers. - "On the other hand" isn't really encyclopedic language. Also, that sentence needs some conversions to miles.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! A point by point response:
  • Reworded to - On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army surrendered to the Red Army, turning an estimated 90,000 men into captivity.
  • I think in this case personnel is relevant, because later in the campaign on the Eastern Front the Germans would also lose hundreds of thousands of civilians.
  • En dash added.
  • Comma added.
  • I removed the en dash entirely (I don't know why it was even used there). Also, units converted.
  • Removed "the" in all instances.
  • Removed "on the other hand", and also removed it elsewhere.
I think that took care of everything mentioned. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Mostly grammatical and stylistic, this being for a FA

  • At the start of 1943, the German Wehrmacht faced a major crisis as Soviet forces encircled and reduced the German Sixth Army. Hadn't they been encircled since November?
  • On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army's commanding officers surrendered an estimated 90,000 men into captivity to Red Army. The wording is still awkward, as we don't normally say "surrender into captivity" in English. Suggest: On 2 February 1943, the Sixth Army's commanding officers surrendered and an estimated 90,000 men went into Red Army captivity
  • For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German–Soviet front, most of which were older designs such as the Panzer IV and Panzer III. In comparison, at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Wehrmacht was equipped with around 3,300 tanks. Most of which were older designs like the Panzer IV and Panzer III. Suggest deleting the phrase about types, as this is mentioned later.
  • The German general informed Hitler And Hitler's response was?
  • The surrender of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad freed six Soviet armies Which ones?
  • deployment problems forced the Red Army's command Elsewhere in the article this is referred to as Stavka.
  • known as the Voronezh–Khar'kov What's with the apostrophe?
  • The German Wehrmacht was considerably understrength, especially after continuous operation between "operation" be "operations"
  • However, the effects of this recruitment was not seen until around May 1943, where the German armed forces were at their highest strength "where" should be "when"
  • At the start of 1943 Germany's armored forces were in considerably poor shape Delete "considerably"
  • most averaged only 70–80 tanks in serviceable conditions I think what is meant is "most averaged only 70–80 serviceable tanks"
  • After the fighting around Kharkov, Heinz Guderian embarked on a program to bring German divisions up to strength. No. Guderian was Inspector General of Armoured Troops. His work was to bring the tanks up to strength. And he was appointed on 1 March 1943, which was not after the fighting around Kharkov.
  • The 6th, 11th and 17th Panzer Divisions were commanded by Generals von Hünersdorff, Hermann Balck and von Senger und Etterlin, respectively. Why isn't von Senger und Etterlin linked?
  • These were under the command of Field Marshals M. A. Reiter, Filipp Golikov and Nikolai Vatutin, Golikov was not promoted to Marshal until 1961, and Vatutin and Reiter never were.
  • On 9 March, the Soviet 40th Army counterattacked against the Panzer Grenadier Division Grossdeutschland How come Grossdeutschland is sometimes in quotes and sometimes not?
  • The Fourth Air Fleet, under the command of Wolfram von Richthofen Field Marshal Wolfram von Richthofen
  • The German Donets Campaign cost the Red Army fifty-two divisions These were permanently destroyed?
  • including around 70,000 personnel losses. Of these troops lost, an estimated 45,200 were killed or went missing, while another 41,200 were wounded. This doesn't add up.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most the grammatical errors should be fixed. Here are some other responses; for example, the first point. Although Operation Uranus commenced in November 1942, encirclement operations continued well into January 1943. I don't feel comfortable taking out the part about the Panzer IIIs and IVs because although it's mentioned later, it's mentioned in a completely different section (sections should be independent, in regards to information, IIRC-in both cases the age of the armor is relevant). I took out Panzer III and Panzer IV and left it at "older designs", and just left the specification below. In regards to Hitler's response to Manstein's report, obviously Hitler acceded, since the battle continued as it's described in the text (I don't think an affirmation of Hitler's agreement with Manstein's plan is needed, since it's sort of redundant). The same goes for specifying which six armies were freed after the Sixth Army surrendered. Adding that seems like adding more numbers and and un-readable prose, when the important part is that Stavka was able to reorient six armies.
On the matter of Guderian. The date of his appointment and the date that he could realistically begin rebuilding Germany's armored forces do not necessarily coincide. Most of the effort to rebuild the German Army took place in late March, throughout April and May, and June. Furthermore, he was appointed not only to increase Germany's tank strength, but to rebuild Germany's mechanized forces - this includes, to a degree, Germany's infantry divisions. Most of the effort to bring Germany's army back to strength was offered by him; other efforts are also mentioned in the text. I clarified that sentence to say "Germany's mechanized forces".
What do you mean by "permanently destroyed"? They may have been reformed after the battle, but that's not really relevant to the article. This is the terminology used by my sources (as referenced). In regards to the casualties, one is a general casualty count provided by most sources and the other is a more specific count provided by Glantz. I will make it read around 70,000-80,000 casualties, so that it adds up better.
Thanks for your review! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to return to the US and cannot continue the discussion. I have a few more quibbles (below) and comments.
(1) I like the new wording about the tanks, which puts things more clearly into context.
(2) The meeting between Hitler and von Manstein's in the field was significant beyond what you say, because by meeting von Manstein in the field, Hitler inadvertently cut Stavka off from its usual sources of intelligence. (You mention that the Germans had good intelligence on Popov's dispositions, but don't mention its source, ie sigint.)
(3) You mention supply lines (by rail? truck? barge?) a couple of times but there is no section on logistics.
(4) I still think the article is far too slanted to the German POV. For example, "Fight for the city 11 March – 15 March" mentions various German units and some commanders but not one Red Army one. Which unit counter-attacked? Who was in command of the defending forces?
More quibbles:
    • Can we have double quotes around "Totenkopf" to conform to the style of the other entries?
    • Why isn't the Bryansk Front linked? Because you misspelt it Briansk?
    • "Field Marshal's Rokossovsky's" should be "Field Marshal Rokossovsky's"
    • I don't like the expression "Russian Stavka". Stalin was from Georgia after all.
    • You still haven't put every instance of Großdeutschland in quotes.
    • A corps is a formation, not a unit.
    • Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the continued comments. Here are some responses. Hitler's visit to von Manstein doesn't necessarily mean that it cut the Soviets from their usual source of intelligence (a source which at that time wasn't very strong or accurate, anyways), because von Manstein did not necessarily plan things out with Hitler. Furthermore, he still had to issue his field reports and reports back to Germany, so I'm not sure where the connection in lack of field intelligence is made. As the text points out, von Manstein simply dissuaded Hitler from directly influencing a decision to retake Kharkov immediately. In the case of Germany's intelligence, my sources really don't say where they got it from, just that they had it.
I was sort of looking for a paragraph on intelligence.
Unfortunately, there is really no study on the use of intelligence during this particular portion of the war. AFAIK, most studies deal with the Soviet preparations against the German Kursk offensive (using Ultra). Therefore, either intelligence (other than standard field intelligence) didn't play a major role in the battle (beyond what is already stated in the article), or nobody has really researched it. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to say in the logistics section? I'm not sure how this is relevant. The important part is that the Soviets over extended their logistics during the winter offensive.
I wanted a section on logistics. An article on a battle or campaign should always describe the logistical and administrative arrangements that made it possible. Especially when it was the decisive factor.
This makes sense for a battle whose logistics are simple to explain, but I don't see how I could fit in a paragraph on German and Soviet logistics (well, I could fit it in ... but the point is where to get the information from). This battle did not employ any special logistics factors; the only factor is that the Soviets extended their supply lines... that's it, and it's already mentioned. I don't see how anything else is relevant (and will just be redundant). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority is actually written from a Soviet perspective (heavy reliance on David M. Glantz); there's just a lack of sources on the fighting in the city itself. The only source I could find was written from the German perspective.

What sources does Glantz use?
Mostly Soviet archival evidence, and he compares to German sources; it's as neutral as any author can get. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Grossdeutschland and Tontekopf, all of them should have the quotation marks removed from their names. Briansk seems like a German transliteration of Bryansk, but I'll change it and link it.
I think it's best to keep a consistent spelling throughout the Wikipedia. To me, the letter is a Ya.

STAVKA was not a Georgian entity, it belonged to the state of the Soviet Union. I'll change Russian to Soviet.

That's what I wanted.

Finally, according to the dictionary a unit is, any group of things or persons regarded as an entity".

That is not the military usage. A unit is a military element whose structure is prescribed, ie has a table of organization and equipment. A formation is an ordered arrangement of troops for a specific purpose. Corps, Army, and Army Group are always formations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to your own definition, a formation is a unit. I was in the Army, and we used both formation and unit interchangeably. Especially in prose, I think they are more or less synonyms. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So was I and we didn't. The point is that one is fixed in size while the other varies in size according to the mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disagrees with you. Division (military) defines it as a unit (and formation), while Company (military unit) defines a company as a unit. Corps is described as a formation, and army group is described as neither (as an organization). It seems to me that these definitions are rather arbitrary. When I was in the 3rd Mechanized Division at Ft. Benning it was our unit (our unit could refer to our platoon, company or division). Free dictionary also describes it as arbitrary nomenclature, meaning the two are interchangeable. In this news article the 1st Brigade Combat Team is described as a unit. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Platoon/company/division are called units - but only because they are. I'm not sure about the brigade combat teams - they came after my time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - You seem to have responded to all of the things I was going to bring up when I commented, mostly about prose, and I can't see any other issues with the article, so I'll support. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "the German counterstroke led to the destruction of around 52 Soviet divisions " - I would change 'around' to 'approximately', and 'counterstroke' to something like 'offensive' or 'operation'; there's no indication in the lead of what the strike is countering.
  • wikilink 'salient'; it's an unfamiliar term for any non-expert
  • "around 470,000 men below full strength, on the Eastern Front." - remove comma; unnecessary
  • "For example, by 23 January only 495 German tanks remained combat ready along the entire length of the German–Soviet front, most of which were older designs." - remove 'for example'; "By 23 January" is strong enough to stand on its own
  • I would personally place the portrait of Manstein at the top-right of the section it's in; looks tidier to me.
  • "At the start of 1943 Germany's armored forces were in considerably poor shape.[36]" - seems vaguely unencyclopedic and repetitive; perhaps something like "German forces had sustained heavy losses by the start of 1943" (if the reference supports the statement)
  • "a German panzer division could count on an estimated 10,000–11,000 personnel" - should probably be "could only count on..."
  • The 'captured German tank' photo should be on the right, as it 'faces' left
  • Subheads under "Manstein's Counterattack" are a bit confusing. Perhaps they should be something like "First stage: 19 February – 6 March"
  • Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg - should be left-aligned, as it faces right
  • "in the face of German success against the Southwestern Front, including attempts of the Soviet 6th Army breaking out of the encirclement," should be "...including attempts by the Soviet 6th..."
  • Missing 'See Also' section
  • I feel that the 'Sources' should go before references; it's not much use IMHO to see lots of "Smith, 47" without having first seen the name of the book that Smith wrote. I am not sure what MOS says on this, however.

That's all I can see. [ roux ] [x] 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I moved the images and did most of everything else. The only thing I didn't do was add a "see also" section; in all of the articles that I have pushed towards FA I've removed the section, because relevant links will already be linked through the text or through a navigation box. It's come up, as well, that it should be deleted because it's not aesthetic. In regards to the sources and notes, I normally put the notes ahead so that if the reader wants to manually go down to sources he or she doesn't have to scroll down through a list of references. Besides, it allows the sources and the further reading to be together. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. I look forward to seeing another star on your userpage! [ roux ] [x] 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comprehensive, engaging and well-written. Please allow me one comment: I don't like this sentence. Hoth repeated his order at 01:15, of 12 March, and Hausser replied the same as he had replied on 11 March. How about "..and Hauser responded as he had on 11 March"? Graham Colm Talk 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, I'll put the image of Manstein back and replace the image of the T-34. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the map, this was the map which was originally used in the article. I checked out the site it was linked to, and this is the "main page" - http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ . It seems that these maps are there at least to allow users to download them, as the academy's "outreach" program. I don't see anything on the site which says that the maps are copyrighted, or at least not free for use. In regards to the other images, I just tried to find images that seemed that I could use them in the article. I will have to replace them all, since I didn't upload any of them. The image of the T-34 is from the T-34 Wiki article, which is featured, and all of their combat images have the same tag. In fact, looking at most images of the Eastern Front during World War II, they have this tag. I will have to find a way of uploading something and claiming it under fair use. I think, though, that I've found a replacement for the map. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the map; can images from the U.S. National Archive be used? JonCatalán(Talk) 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two fair use images in the article now; if I need to expand the template for the images please tell me and give me a hand (never been good at making drawn out fair use rationales). The only original image left is that of von Manstein (as I try to find a suitable replacement; if U.S. national archive images are fine, then I will replace it with one from there). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National Archive: [4]. Note that the {{PD-Ukraine}} template has "if known" - difficult to know date of death of author if the work was published anonymously. Gimmetrow 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the image was already on Wikipedia; the image of Manstein has been exchanged with one in free domain. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on the image of the T-34 was incorrect as well, since the battle the tank is said to be in took place in 1943, which is beyond the dates provided by the public domain tags. So, I changed it with the image from the National Archives, and put the image of von Manstein back up, since it seems that one is OK. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the free images should meet criteria now. I'm unsure about the additions of nonfree images, however; how does an image of tanks at the battle significantly increase reader understanding? Has there been any attempt to negotiate free use of the images? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those images are of the fighting in Kharkov, during the battle. They illustrate the equipment being used by the Germans (well, examples thereof), and there are really no free domain images of the fighting (as this FAC illustrates, there are few free domain images on the Eastern Front, in general). So, it's also an argument between illustrating the battle with two images, or not illustrating it at all. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This article only deals with military issues I would like to know what happened to the city (in what degree was it destroyed) and it's inhabitants during the battle. Mieciu K (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You find a single source (in languages that I can read) that talks about that, and I'll add it in. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 23:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the problem of lack of reliable English language sources. This is why I have placed a comment not an objection. The high loss of civilian life during World War II seems to be a taboo subject in modern Russia, maybe some people think mentioning such issues is lessening the Soviet victory. Mieciu K (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem, I think, is that Western sources explain the battle more as an example of a great German strategic victory, as opposed to giving it a more human dimension. I mean, the fact that I could only find one source on the fighting in the city itself shows how most see the fighting outside the city as more important as the city inside the city. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:12, 13 November 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/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov&oldid=1148680704"