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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 [1].

Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in July 1943, during the Second World War in the Eastern Front. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, after which the Soviets permanently gained the strategic initiative, while the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives of such size in the Eastern Front.

This was nominated before but got bogged down on portrait copyright issues, and was ultimately closed due to prolonged inactivity. Image copyright issues have now been resolved with the appropriate fair use tag. EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by K.e.coffman[edit]

  • There are some cases of over-citations, such as: "this is incorrect as the battle simply did not involve that many tanks.[217][218][219][220][221]". I think this impacts readability, as well as when citations break up sentences: "They eventually succeeded by the morning of 6 July,[32] but the delay in their advance kept them from protecting the east flank of the II SS-Panzer Corps.[24]" These are both cited to Clark, so I'd just combine into one citation.
Response. Some instances of over-citations are due to a decade-long history of arguments and edit wars over numbers, outcome, etc. What've I've done is to merge citations. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: It seems that the edit warring / disputes have stopped. It's been quiet at the main article (Battle of Kursk), too. Hope it stays this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My general observations is that most of the recent historiography agrees on what occurred. I don't think that the content is generally controversial, so that such close citing is not needed. For example, I read both Showalter and Clark and there were no major disagreements that I could recall. I'd pick up two sources and reduce citations, randomly if needed. I think 3 citations per sentence should be an absolute max, ideally two or less.
Response. Fixed. Merged some more too.
  • From the lead: "...breaking through the third defensive belt to achieve operational freedom" -- would that not be tactical freedom? Soviets still had three belts (not as strong, but still) & plenty of reserves. I think "operational freedom", a la Blau, would be pretty generous.
Response. Need to dig around to verify if this was specifically from any source. However, the last three belts were mostly empty before 5 July, except for some garrison near Kursk itself. Also, the third belt from the front line was scantily occupied until 9/10 July when three armies moved into position. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Removed mention of operational freedom from the lede. Could only find two sources that say the Germans could have achieved freedom of movement if things went as planned, i.e. they barged through the three belts in the first two or three days. EyeTruth (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Operational' freedom, though, comports with Glantz's writing on this. The Germans' immediate point was to break through the Soviet tactical zone into their operational depths. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMorpheus2: I do feel like I've read something along those lines somewhere before, which is why I had initially allowed it to stay in the article for so long. However, I'm unable to find a source that explicitly shows that the German were in the verge of breaking into a free rear on 12 July. Instead, I keep finding contrary information. EyeTruth (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistent with what I read; to speak of 'operational freedom' in the face of the failure of the northern pincer would be odd. Freedom to nowhere? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the infobox: 1st Tank Army; 6th Guards Army; 69th Army -- is their inclusion justified in the infobox? They do not appear to be discussed in the article & are mentioned only in footnotes.
Response. Only included for consistent format, because the main units (5th GTA and 5th GA) are in that format. The real focus are the subordinate corps and divisions. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The reason that I originally asked was because the infobox was creating an impression as if the Soviets had multiple armies counter-attacking several German divisions. I still think that the infobox can be streamlined by removing, for example: 6th Guards Army[h]: 23rd Guards Rifle Corps; 69th Army: 48th Rifle Corps. Both of these corps are mentioned only once in the article. In general, I don't think that the infobox needs to provide the full ORBAT; this can be covered in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, everything that's not under the 5th GTA and 5th GA could all get grouped together under "other units", and the bigger units they were subordinated to gets dropped. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the background section: "...with Field Marshal Erich von Manstein arguing for a mobile defence..."; from my reading of literature, the situation was more complex, with some German commanders arguing for, some against, while Manstein was first for Citadel, then against it, then sort of for it, etc. I think the mentioning on Manstein only is undue; he was just one of the field commanders. If anything, Kurt Zeitzler, as head of OKH, or Guderian, with whom Hitler appeared to have consulted closely (IIRC), would be more appropriate here. Alternatively, I would put a general statement in there, and not mention specific German commanders, as the situation was muddled. Along the lines of: the opinions were divided. Putting the blame for Citadel solely in Hitler's lap is not in line with what I read (for example, in Citino). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Manstein did hold that view in Feb/Mar 1943. And yes the situation was complex with competing views. But Manstein is the relevant commander here: Haussar → Hoth → Manstein. Hence the focus on just him, Hoth and Hassaur, with a brief mention of Hitler. The broader details of the German planning for Citadel and their operations during the Donets Campaign are (or should be) covered in the Battle of Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now why Manstein was chosen. Still, I think it's a bit simplistic to highlight his idea in this fashion. IIRC, Citino made fun of this proposal, as in: what if the Soviets "refused to cooperate"? In his view, this idea was Wehrmacht's search for Bewegungskrieg at a time when its time has already passed. Etc.
In general, I wonder if the background section is attempting to do too much: two maps, a photo, etc. I would almost start with the section "German advance to Prokhorovka" as it was really the "prelude" to the battle. I don't advocate drastically chopping the Background section at this point, but wonder if you may get similar feedback from other reviewers. If not, then I'd stand corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't go into whether his idea would've work or not, and it doesn't strike me as something this article should cover (maybe Battle of Kursk if necessary). EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background is definitely needed for Prokhorovka. A new reader—say they've finished watching a number of documentaries about the eastern front—should be able to read the first section and not get lost. Jumping straight into the 5th of July 1943 will beg the question of why the Germans are attacking Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Thank you for addressing the above. Conditional support pending further input on the structure / scope of the Background section. I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Done. Only the infobox has fixed image size (because when I changed to "upright" it became toooo oversized). EyeTruth (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have a few prose nitpicks and other queries:

No clue what the map is based on. But placements of units appears to be roughly fine for 4 July, but there are still some inaccuracies (e.g. placement of 5th GTA and 10th TC). I've always felt a little iffy for the blue arrows. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I've always wanted to remove it, but can't find a replacement that's good enough. If you know of any hidding away somewhere in Commons, please share. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No name. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Response. All done except for the first. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Changed from nonspecific quantitative ("massive") to qualitative ("major"). Numbers are covered in detail in another section. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Done. Wasn't it already clear that Voronezh Front is in the southern side? May need to clarify elsewhere in the article if so. The offensive was unnamed and almost impromptu. When Stavka, on 9 July, gave the greenlight for Kutuzov, Vasilevsky (Stavka rep in the south) was also told to make sure something big happened in the southern side as well. That's part of the reason Roitmistrov didn't lose his head after losing half of his fresh tank army in less than 24 hours. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces

Response. All done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Italicisation made consistent for state farm non-English names across the whole article. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The mentioned doesn't seem detrimental or constitute as overemphasis. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Yes. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Nothing for 12 July that I've seen. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the main engagement

Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Replaced "more defendable" with "tenable". EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Put en dashes on either side. Is that OK? EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and losses

Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

Misconceptions and disputations

Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of Newton's stated conclusions are being corroborated. Changing to "conclusions" will require moving sentences around a little. But I gave it a shot. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left it there out of respect to some editors from a long time ago. It wasn't really a citation for anything in the article. Moved to external links section. Licari was an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa. His article is a good start, but not completely accurate, and has absolutely no inline citations (especially for figures and historic information). EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. It's cited only for the name the VIII Fliegerkorps' commander. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and background

Comments by Kges1901[edit]

Support - My concerns have been addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German attack toward Prokhorovka

Fixed. Removed wikilink. The Soviets created way too many divisions during WWII. Better to unlink, at least for now. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of Soviet forces

See response above. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review here. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominator's first FA so I'd like the usual spot-check of sourcing for close paraphrasing and accurate use. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a SR because K.e. Coffman said above "I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job!" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take my comment is as a SR; I've read some of the books being cited, so that was my general impression. It might be best to follow the standard protocol. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, I'll try to get to this tomorrow ... but we're painting. It might be Wednesday. If someone else steps up, that's not a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominator, so I don't know if my source review counts. I did one back when I was taking the article through A-Class review, and since then I've kept a close eyes at sources. Except for a few sources, I've verified that all the information in the article can be found in the respective citations where there are any. The few sources that I couldn't check were Bergström, Healy, Molony et al., and Overy. But for the most part, the passages they are cited for are consistent with what other sources say. EyeTruth (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EyeTruth: Unfortunately your review does not count as you are the nominator. However, Ealdgyth has done a source review below, and there is just one issue to address. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: As we still need a spot check of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, do you have access to any of the sources used? If so, would it be possible for you to check 4 or 5 references? Some reviewers post the content of the article and the content of the source which verifies it so that other reviewers can check (for example in this current FAC) but that isn't strictly necessary. But I'd like to try and wrap this one up now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I've addressed every issue directed at the nominator that I know of. Is there anything else needed from me? EyeTruth (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needed from you at the moment, we are still looking for a spot check. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed that statement. EyeTruth (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More from Casliber (talk · contribs)[edit]

Ok spot check looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is pretty much ready to go. I've made a few minor tweaks, and I noticed a few places where the references were not in numerical order. I've tweaked these, but feel free to revert this if they were intentionally in that order. Also, I might have missed a few and I would recommend checking for other instances if it was not intentional; but this isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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