Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Moscow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buidhe (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 23 June 2020 (→‎top: opening FAR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBattle of Moscow is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 19, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Featured article review needed

This Featured article is a 2006 promotion whose main writer has not been active for many years. There are problems raised on talk (above), considerable amounts of uncited text, and a MOS review is needed. If these issues cannot be addressed, this article should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be able to add missing references (or to change the text to address cn). Can you please look through the whole article and check it for other problems?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have to agree with comments above. Stating in the lede that it was the turning point in the war without giving another perspective is a NPOV violation. Yes, there are a lot of RS which say so, but you can find lots of equally good sources saying that Barbarossa was doomed from the outset, or giving a different turning point (US entry into the war, El Alamein, Stalingrad, etc.) buidhe 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't meet MOS:IMAGELOC. buidhe 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and reference style needs an overhaul. I also find it odd that the article relies most heavily on the weakest sources in the bibliography (various memoirs) instead of the best quality secondary coverage. buidhe 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is probably also on the short side given it covers one of the largest and most important battles of World War II: I doubt it covers its topic fully. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FAR is due, as the article has not kept up with the FAR requirements. For example, there are multiple citations to Guderian and Zhukov. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added Bellamy's "Absolute war" to the list of sources. This book was awarded the Duke of Westminster's Medal for Military Literature in 2008, the author is Professor of Military Science and Doctrine and head of the Security and Resilience Group, Cranfield University. It can be used as a source for many statements. I am going to add references to this book with exact page numbers to replace cn tags, memoirs, as well as references to TV films. I need some time to finish this work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]