Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this meets the A-class criteria or is close to meeting it. If it isn't meeting it, I will improve it so it meets the A-class criteria. This article is about a Soviet mechanized corps that was formed three times and which fought in WWII. Kges1901 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Nice work, thanks for your efforts with this article. It's not really an area that I know much about, but I made a few minor tweaks here and there, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead: "disbanded in late August" --> suggest adding the year here;
  • what's a chemical tank? Is there a link that could be provided here?
  • "...the corps was converted into the 15th Tank Corps": do we know why this occured?
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Istomin source?
  • I wonder about whether a list of commanders and a structure or orbat section might be added to the added as separate sections?
  • "Perechen No. 4 Part III" website: can publisher and accessdate details be provided for this ref?
  • the paragraph beginning "On 1 October the corps..." is quite long. I wonder if it could be split somewhere?
  • "Spas-Demensk Offensive" (and similar constructions) should use an endash instead of the hyphen per WP:DASH;
  • "...and the corps achieved "limited success" with its own attack..." (probably best to clarify whose opinion is that they had "limited success")
  • "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-090-3916-30, Russland, zerstörter sowjetischer Panzer.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the white bar was cropped off
  • {{Soviet Union corps}} seems to draw the eye away from the article a little; I wonder if it might be better to present it in its collapsed form?

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Year ranges need to conform to the new requirement of MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • The space between the commanders in the infobox can be removed by changing the breaks to bullet points like I did with the years of formations.
  • Done
  • Link Komdiv on first use.
  • Done
  • On 11 June 1934 the corps delete the years since we know it from the previous sentence.
  • Done
  • Vickers 12-ton!? I think that this is a typo for the Vickers 6-ton which was sold to the Soviets.
  • Russian Vickers 12 tons are mentioned in this book [1] Kges1901 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Can you explain Crossing 76 and 77 a little. I suspect that they were related to the Trans-Siberian RR, but would like a bit more info.
  • Done
  • Link flamethrower,
  • Done
  • On 1 July the corps was still with the 16th Army and consisted of the 13th and 17th Tank Divisions and the 109th Motorised Division We already know the composition of the corps from the previous paragraph.
  • Done
  • On the same day, the corps was reported to be fighting in the Liady and Syrokorenye region, 60 kilometres (37 mi) west of Smolensk. It was reported to be retreating to the Gusino crossing, 45 kilometres (28 mi) west of the city. This is kinda confusing, what's the sequence here?
    • Still needs clarification
  • Done
  • The 1st Motor Rifle Division was attached to the corps in the Smolensk Pocket Is there a date for this, if not, then delete "in the Smolensk Pocket" since we already know that it's there.
    • And this.
  • Why was the corps disbanded in August? Down to Third Formation, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • German encirclement line delete line

@Kges1901: It's been nearly three weeks; any progress on addressing Sturm's comments? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • city outskirts. The corps was thrown back by German reinforcements This last sentence should probably be tied in directly to the preceding one by replacing the period with a comma and "but"
  • It fought in Operation Gallop Link this better to the preceding sentence to make the text flow better. Try something like "Almost immediately afterward, it was committed to fight in..." Also be sure to note that Gallop happened in 1943.
  • What happened to the 49th Mech Brigade between 1 April and 1 May?
  • and in the Spas–Demensk Offensive of the battle This bit links back to the 2nd Battle of Smolensk immediately before it.
  • It was relocated from Kirov to the 10th Army's sector of the breakthrough towards Vorontsovo. The corps became part of the 10th Army. Combine these two sentences.
  • By the time it attacked, the German troops' resistance had stiffened. It engaged in heavy fighting in the Tyagaevo area, subject to air attacks which destroyed many of its Lend-Lease tanks. Until 16 August, the corps advanced 5–10 kilometres (3.1–6.2 mi). On that day there was a heavy air raid which caused significant losses resulting in the transfer of the corps to front reserve. These are awkward with little to no transitions between them. Recommend consolidating them into two sentences.
  • The corps was moved back to Ukraine after being replenished from Naro-Fominsk in December 1943. what does this mean, replenished?
  • You have a bad had of saying "the corps did this, and then the corps did something else" Mix it a bit by rewording things and using pronouns.
  • Only in a couple of places. And you chose in one place to use "they" rather than "it", which reads very oddly to me. You need to go through the entire article and systematically mix things up. Perhaps someone from the WP:GOCE could help with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901:

  • Link self-propelled gun
  • Shubennyi Stav, which was to be taken on 26 January with Zvenigorodka what does this mean? Sound like Zvenigorodka is to be used to take Shubennyi Stav, which can't be right.
  • Some maps of the various battles would be very helpful.
  • On the next night the Dniester had been crossed and awkward
  • Not fond of lists of commanders; I think that they should be covered in the main body of the article.
  • To my knowledge, the commanders are covered in the main body, and AustralianRupert requested one above. Kges1901 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book template for books with multiple authors to match the use of ampersands in the Notes section.

comments by Auntieruth55[edit]

  • I'm close to supporting this. A couple of questions?
  • I'm not sure about the mechcorps.rkka. etc a reliable source. I don't read Russian, and I cannot tell
  • Should "corps" when it refers specifically to this unit be capitalized?
  • Shouldn't the distance template turn on abbreviations after first use?
  • I'm a fan of maps.  :)
  • The 5th Mechanised Corps was reformed on 8 September 1942 on the basis of the 22nd Tank Corps. what does this mean?
  • I'd be happier if there were fewer simple sentences. X was this. X was that. X was something else. Makes it sound so much like one darn thing after another. What did this Corps actually do? auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note. A this point, I don't think this review is accomplishing anything. It has well and truly stagnated and the prospect of promotion in the near future seems slim. Kges1901, I suggest carefully going through and addressing the outstanding comments at your leisure and perhaps asking the reviewers for advice, and then re-nominating it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 2 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/5th_Mechanised_Corps_(Soviet_Union)&oldid=1143876760"