The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Barbarossa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!)

Operation Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I want to see it reach FA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments -- I don't know if I'll be able to post a full review here but on a quick glance:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved things around. Did it get better? EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't specifically called off, but it did end, because the operation was abandoned. The offensive was defeated before most of the goals outlined in Directive 21 could be achieved. And effort towards most of those goals were suspended indefinitely. It's akin to the outcome of Operation Brunswick, which was never specifically called off, but clearly ended with the German defeat at Stalingrad. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the map didn't include any of the Axis nations and co-belligerents. Also, Hitler's ultimate enemy were the Slavs. The map was modelled after this ONE. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was in France and the Low Countries, because Britain was still a significant target up till late 1941. Not sure if that deserves a mention. No? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, doesn't deserve mention. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Instigated" wouldn't be the correct characterization. Stalin was extremely paranoid, and the accusations layered on the incarcerated officers were often related to spying for Nazi Germany. Most of the evidence brought against these officers are now known to have been concocted by Stalin's cronies, but others are still debated. Because in some cases, the Germans took advantage of the situation and leaked falsified evidence that only helped seal the fate of the officers, e.g. Mikail Tukachevsky. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully alleviated the difficult read by splitting the unwieldy sentence in two. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at "Invasion" for now. From what I have seen so far though, this article needs a lot of copyediting. Mostly the issue is simply re-organization to make it read more linearly, but it does seem that it would not suffer from the removal of perhaps 15 to 20% of the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:V isn't met

Oppose - @WP:MILHIST coordinators: this looks to me to be a candidate for a quickfail. There is a huge amount of high quality academic material on this subject. TV doco's and a non-RS website just don't meet the standard of citations needed at Milhist ACR. I agree with Nick's comment regarding some sources not being verifiable. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Nick above. --Molestash (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've actioned the quickfail suggestion above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More