| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I have expanded this article from stub to the current state with several iterations over the years and think its in a pretty good shape now. I want to bring this article to GA, but I never put an article through this process. Therefore I would appreciate some feedback if there are some major problems left which could prevent that. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Should use a consistent variety of English
- Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
- Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?
- Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
- Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
- The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild
- "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
- File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?
- Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description
- File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details
- Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author
- Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I tried to address the issues raised, but I have some questions remaining if you dont mind. Below all your remarks and my actions:
- I addressed the following points in the article:
- Suggest using a section heading other than Conclusion - Results, Aftermath...?
- Any way to prosify the Orders of battle section, or incorporate it into the article text?
- C: It is already in the article in prose as well as in the infobox. So I deleted this section.
- Be consistent in whether you refer to the defenders as Russian or Soviet
- Suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs where possible
- "Group F advanced very fast 64 km (40 mi) through rough terrain to the Vyonitsa River (twice as many as the Germans in the whole July)" - I don't understand what the parenthetical refers to
- Should use a consistent variety of English
- C: I tried to address this point and changed to British English where I found American terms/spellings.
- Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - either cite them or split to Further reading.
- Suggest scaling up Capture of Salla image, and it should include a source in its image description
- C: I added some more information. This map was created by me. Its not based on an existing map, its an compilation/combination of various maps and written informations from the 2 sources I added into the description.
- I addressed the following points in the article:
- My Questions:
- Generally if you are using "et al" in short cites, it would be accompanied by the first not the last author
- I understand. However in the book it is stated that this particular author is the main author of the section where the citation is coming from. Should I still change it to the first author of the general volume?
- No, in that case you should change the full citation to specify this particular section that you are citing - is it a chapter...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a chapter credited to Ueberschär. He wrote a large chapter about the German-Finnish War effort, which has a sub-chapter about Operation Arctic Fox. How should a citation look like in that case? Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ueberschär, Gerd R. (1983). "Name of chapter on Operation Arctic Fox". In Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (eds.). Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion [Attack on the Soviet Union]. Germany and the Second World War (in German). Vol. IV. Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. pp. 800–900. ISBN 3421060983.
- Ahh ok, I understand now where you are coming from. I thought I have to change the actual referencing, not the book. I will add the correct book citation and the correct image sourcing at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for your help. Dead Mary (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ueberschär, Gerd R. (1983). "Name of chapter on Operation Arctic Fox". In Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (eds.). Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion [Attack on the Soviet Union]. Germany and the Second World War (in German). Vol. IV. Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. pp. 800–900. ISBN 3421060983.
- Yes, it is a chapter credited to Ueberschär. He wrote a large chapter about the German-Finnish War effort, which has a sub-chapter about Operation Arctic Fox. How should a citation look like in that case? Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, in that case you should change the full citation to specify this particular section that you are citing - is it a chapter...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. However in the book it is stated that this particular author is the main author of the section where the citation is coming from. Should I still change it to the first author of the general volume?
- File:Silverfox1.jpg: which of the Russian rationales do we believe applies here?
- I didn't uploaded the picture. I think it would be point 3 or 4 (they are basically the same). The picture seems to circulate exclusively in the Russian internet as well as in Russian publications. I also couldn't find it in the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), so it seems to not have been published in Germany. I therefore would conclude it is a picture published in Russia without the author known, perhaps captured from a German soldier, making it free according to point 3/4. Do you think it is ok to keep the picture in the article or should it be replaced?
- For either of those to apply, the work would need to have been published, not just created, before 1946 - do we know that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well we dont really know anything I guess. I will replace the picture with a similar one to be more safe. Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- For either of those to apply, the work would need to have been published, not just created, before 1946 - do we know that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't uploaded the picture. I think it would be point 3 or 4 (they are basically the same). The picture seems to circulate exclusively in the Russian internet as well as in Russian publications. I also couldn't find it in the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), so it seems to not have been published in Germany. I therefore would conclude it is a picture published in Russia without the author known, perhaps captured from a German soldier, making it free according to point 3/4. Do you think it is ok to keep the picture in the article or should it be replaced?
- File:Silberfuchs-plan.png is tagged as lacking source details
- The picture is self created by the author who uploaded it. It looks pretty legitimate. Therefore I don't know how to proceed, it was uploaded about 10 years ago.
- Can you add sources to support the information conveyed by that image? Nikkimaria (talk)
- Yes, I will do that.Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can you add sources to support the information conveyed by that image? Nikkimaria (talk)
- The picture is self created by the author who uploaded it. It looks pretty legitimate. Therefore I don't know how to proceed, it was uploaded about 10 years ago.
- The article would likely benefit from a pass by the Guild
- Ok, I understand. I have a general questions left regarding that topic: What do generally think of the article, especially my prose? I have difficulties to assess whether my general writing style is appropriate or if it is somehow completely off. English is not my native language. I think I have reasonable skills to articulate myself properly, but writing good articles is obviously a different matter.
- Your writing is quite good for a non-native speaker, but there are some errors or instances where flow is interrupted - that is why I suggest Guild involvement, as they're generally quite good at addressing these types of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I will put it up at the GoC Guild. Thank you for your review! Dead Mary (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your writing is quite good for a non-native speaker, but there are some errors or instances where flow is interrupted - that is why I suggest Guild involvement, as they're generally quite good at addressing these types of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. I have a general questions left regarding that topic: What do generally think of the article, especially my prose? I have difficulties to assess whether my general writing style is appropriate or if it is somehow completely off. English is not my native language. I think I have reasonable skills to articulate myself properly, but writing good articles is obviously a different matter.
- I hope you can answer my remaining questions. Thank you. Dead Mary (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- My Questions: