Talk:252nd Rifle Division

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:252nd Rifle Division (Soviet Union)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WelpThatWorked (talk · contribs) 15:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

General

• Citations look solid WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are three instances of "was/were noted as" that should be simplified to "was/were"

• Rephrased.

• Should be titled 252nd Rifle Division per WP:PRECISION and WP:MILUNIT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'll move it after the review is over. Kges1901 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any battle maps that show the 252nd? WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, most battle maps we have on commons don't go down to division level for Soviet divisions. Kges1901 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead and Formation

• The Lead implies a second battle honor that is not mentioned. What is it? WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Have fixed that error as the division had only two honorifics. Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Order of Battle list should be indented to clarify what groups were under which. A diagram might be a nice addition, I can try creating one myself, or find someone else to do it, does that sound good? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• All of the units listed were under the division headquarters, so no indenting is necessary. Kges1901 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• The "Battle of Smolensk" and "Typhoon and Winter Offensive" Sections should likely go under a new heading, rather than under "Formation" WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• @WelpThatWorked: Is the new heading adequately descriptive? Kges1901 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kges1901, Sorry for my long absence, I had been occupied with some school stuff. The new heading sounds much better. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "After Zabaluev arrived the division was quickly moved to Ostashkov, where it was assigned to the 29th Army of Lieutenant General Ivan Maslennikov in the Reserve of the Supreme High Command, by July 13, less than three weeks after beginning to be formed." Split into Two sentences, maybe along the first comma.WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done Kges1901 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• "As of July 26" sounds a bit off, change to "On July 26"? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Link "Dubrovna, Borodkina and Suslovo" if possible WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not possible to link, probably small villages not on a map anymore. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Abeyance" is an uncommon word, maybe replace it with something simpler? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Link "All-Round Defense" to All round defence WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The following day it was tasked with the mission of liquidating, in conjunction with the 126th Rifle Division of 22nd Army, an enemy infantry regiment with tanks that had reached the Dvina in the Suvorovo region". It's a bit unclear to me who had the tanks, and I feel that the part about them working with the 126th should go before the mission, something like "Together with the 126th, the division was tasked with..." WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey WelpThatWorked Could you please continue your review? This one is still ongoing I was just wondering when this would be promoted. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Picked up by Gog the Mild

I have been bold with a copy edit. Please flag up here anything you don't like or which I have got wrong.

• It's very weak on images. I would recommend putting in some stock images.

• I've just found two combat path maps from one of the division's histories at Pamyat Naroda. One is of the campaign around Kalinin and the other shows the Stalingrad campaign. There may be more. I've copied them to my hard drive. (Wreck Smurfy)

• Same source has maps for liberations of Lyubotyn and Bratislava. It would also be possible to add portrait photos of generals Zabaluev, Urbanovich and Anisimov.

@Wreck Smurfy: That's great. Are they PD, or is there a fair use rationale? If so, could you post them to Commons, so Kges1901 could have a look at them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded similar maps from this source in the past; see 379th Rifle Division (Soviet Union). I used the following to argue it is PD: "Under the copyright law in effect in the USSR at the time of creation, the copyright term was changed from 25 years following the first publication of a work to the lifetime of the author plus 15 years (15 years p.m.a.)." As for the photos, I would use the same argument that I used for the image of Gorbachyov. As for uploading to Commons, I haven't done that before; I've only uploaded locally. Not quite sure how to go about it. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Link "German invasion".

• Done, and expanded the sentence to include more context

• "in that role" In what role? I suggest deleting.

• As a rifle division, but it may be obvious that the division was serving as infantry

• Could we have { {convert} } for the distances.

• Done. If the same conversion is given twice should the template still be used?

Opinions are divided, but I suggest going with no.

• "the division was reorganized in the spring of 1942" Just to be clear, the division was reorganised while partially or completely encircled and in close contact with the enemy?

• Sentence moved for clarity. Will become more clear when full OoB is added.

• What's the "RVGK"?

• Explained

• Are Hill 130.7 and Hill 139.7 different, or is one a typo?

• Two different hills with an exact 9 meter difference, as they were captured on different days.

Fair enough. Just checking.

• Can we lose the "3." at the start of the block quote.

• Done

• Why is "slow pursuit" in inverted commas?

• Reworded the sentence

• "tore one gaping hole and several lesser gaps in the defenses of VIII Army Corps' 44th Infantry Division." This quote needs to be attributed in line.

• In line reference added.

• "returned on January 30 for the final act, although it remained in Army reserve against contingencies." This leaves me confused as to whether the division returned to the front line or stayed in reserve.

• Reworded for (I think) greater clarity. It returned from rest but was not committed to the immediate front line.

• Why does the first block quote in Operation Rumyantsev start with "1."?

• First item in the order it was quoted from. Have removed as that isn't relevant to the quote.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "until 6 June" Shouldn't that be US style.

• Done

• "the latter of which held a front of five kilometres" Maybe reword this sentence? I struggle to work out who "the latter" is.

• Rephrased - the meaning I'm trying to convey here is that the 928th Rifle Regiment held a five-km front. See if it makes sense in that regard now.

• Several of the books mentioned in the cites lack ISBNs/

• Done. Wreck Smurfy, could you please check that the ISBNs I've added for the books you have access to are correct (contained in the book)? Kges1901 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's the correct ISBN for Barbarossa Derailed, but it should be noted as Vol. 1. ISBN for Vol. 2, if you're going to add it, is 978 1 906033 90 3. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Optional: Make cite 1 a footnote.

• Done

• The first two sentences of section Operation Rumyantsev need citing, as does the first block quote there.

• Done.

OK. I'll give it a reread in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kges1901, just to avoid any confusion, I am confirming that I am waiting for you to come back on my outstanding comments above before giving this another read through. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In the buildup to the November counteroffensive the division was transferred to 65th Army." needs citing.
• "By this time the main preoccupation of the STAVKA was the German successes in the first phases of the Third Battle of Kharkov. It began reassigning its reserve forces in the south on the evening of February 28." needs citing.

• Both of these are covered by the citations at the end of the block quotes.

I thought that they might be. However, as the MoS requires [most] quotes to be cited inline a reader would have no reason to suppose that this cite extends to the text before the quote. Could you repeat the cite at the end of the last sentences before the quotes.

• Done

• There is a mix of km and kilometres. Could you standardise?

• Done

And that, I think, should be that. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Very solid. Straight into ACR? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed