Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Uranus

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [1].

---

Operation Uranus

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

Operation Uranus was the Soviet encirclement of the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad, during the Battle of Stalingrad. This article recently passed its good article nomination, and I believe it's ready for a featured article nomination. Some notes:

1. All images are taken from those provided by the Bundesarchiv to Commons, so they are all legitimate; the map was created by a Wikipedia user.
2. There is no use of any online resources; all sources are published. I would say that the footnotes are all worked out, but I just saw one that has to be united; this should be taken care of soon, though.

Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's strange, because it tells me to disambiguate Kalach; I wikilinked it in the lead (the correct disambiguated link), but there was no wikilink originally. It still tells me to disambiguate Kalach, but I can't find the wikilink it's referring to. I even searched for every instance of the word "Kalach" in the text. Do I need to get my vision checked? JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen comments in other places that dab tool's results take time to update. If you think you got them all, wait some hours and check again. --an odd name 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think toolserver.org is having problems; edit count says that I have 32 edits total on the page, while WikiChecker claims I've made 83. There may be a similar problem with the dabs page. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support After a thorough copyedit, my only blocking issue is seeming inconsistency in how the number assigned to a given military group is written (e.g. "Romanian Third Army" vs. "4th Panzer Army"). Per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, the latter seems to be correct. Instead of "Romanian Third Army", the correct way to write it out seems to be "3rd Romanian Army". The same applies more broadly: (number) (nation) (branch), not (nation) (number) (branch). This is perhaps trivial, but FAC seems to be the best place to iron out these minor issues with consistency. Other than that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written narrative that meets WP:FACR. Emw2012 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Different books have different methods. Most books have German armies written out, while Soviet armies are numbered; I have feeling that this is to distinguish one from the other. In terms of corps, sometimes a book might call the 48th Panzer Corps the XXXXVIII and others might call it the XLVIII. I think that as long as its consistent throughout the article, the naming is fine; as far as a I know, the naming is consistent. What I don't know is if the 3rd Romanian Army was how the Germans called it, and there was no other 3rd Army. Or if there was a German 3rd Army, and then there was also Romania's 3rd Army. In that case, then Romanian 3rd Army is fine (or with the 3rd spelled out; if German army names are spelled out, so should other Axis Army names). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I also notice that there's alternation between "Romanian Third Army" and "Third Romanian Army". Would it be preferable to maintain a consistent style with the order in which the number and national affiliation of a given unit are written? I didn't do an exhaustive check throughout the article for variations of that issue, but if it is something that should be fixed then I would suggest such a check. Emw2012 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking through my sources, it seems that the most popular name for the Romanian army is "Third Romanian Army", and so I will go through the article and make sure these are all consistent. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, so I support this article's promotion. Emw2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on the lead and the first two sections of the article. I found no flaws whatsoever in the prose, and the content is engaging and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. My only concern is that you'll get yet another FA, which isn't allowed to happen. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the ref "McTaggart (2006), pp. 49–50" used a name reference? Currently, there are multiple references with this. Xclamation point 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Now that that's fixed. As with Juliancolton, I see no errors in prose. Seems FA quality. Xclamation point 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - there don't seem to be any problems (this is my first FA image review if anybody wants to double check my work, but it looks pretty straightforward: there's one GFDL-licensed user-created image with all required information, and the rest are all from the Commons:Bundesarchiv donation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Eastern Front 1942-11 to 1943-03.png - The information in this map needs to be sourced to a reliable source per WP:IUP (everything else checks out - thanks for helping out!). Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be resolved as per the other FAC. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Lead is good; pictures are all fine; prose is good, no problems that I can see; refs all read correctly, no problems there. Finally, content is accurate as far as I know, no flaws or false information, no POV. Excellent article worthy of FA. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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