Talk:Battle of Kursk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 10, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 


Reads like German revisionist history[edit]

As with so many YouTube videos on the Nazi invasion of the USSR, this entry also has the stench of Nazi revisionism within its paragraphs. The closet neo-Nazis are very busy, whitewashing their war with Russia. Take for example the passages with glowingly talk of German commanders "knocking out 30 T-34s and getting the Iron cross". The tendency to heroize the Nazi invasion is throughout this amateurish, biased 'history' of Kursk. The Russian perspective is missing or deliberately minimized: the Russians are barbarians who should not have won, they only won because of sheer numbers against the heroic Nazi war machine. This is how this crap article reads! Rubbish articl written by closet-neo nazis. We see the same crap with Timothy Snyder, neo nazi 'historian for the US State Department in their effort to whitewash the new regime of post-Maidan Ukraine. Face it: the Nazis lost. No amount of 'would have/could have/should have' will change this fact, written in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.29.7 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Article Content and Rating[edit]

  Perseus 71 talkAfter recently reading the book "Armor and Blood: The Battle of Kursk: The Turning Point of World War II" By Dennis E. Showalter, I came to this page to see how much of the information has made it in this article. That book is a comprehensive account citing first hand information from Memoirs of the Belligerents from this conflict. I understand the scope of this article is about Operation Citadel the German Offensive and does not / should not cover the Counter Offensive. Based on the discussion I see above, it seems Editors are /were working on this article. If such is the case, I will let them utilize the reference and continue. (I have added the reference partly). Otherwise I'll be happy to add from the book since I still have it. My intention is to get it beyond the C-Class.

I've read some of that and though there were aspects that I thought were helpful, in general I did not have tremendous confidence in it as a reference. I did use him as a reference a couple of times for the Battle of Prokhorovka page. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. If you have something you think should be added go ahead. If you can support it with a reference all the better. People may change it if they do not agree. Then we would want to discuss the issue here on the talk page (Bold Edit - Revert - Discuss). The first part is Bold Edit, so by all means. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate on why you think this book isn't a good reference ? I thought the troop movements and Orders of Battle were pretty detailed in that book. Admitted, due to deeply divided nature of Waffen SS coverage here on Wiki, those details would have to be in moderation.
Honestly speaking, my specialty is on Luftwaffe and particularly western front. But JG 51 drew me to the book and here.
In response, an example would be this discussion of the German situation in the spring of 1943. Showalter writes (p. 51):
Hitler obsessively saw himself as working against time. In contrast with Marxist-based radicalism, which ultimately understood itself to be on the side of history, Hitler's clock was always at five minutes to midnight. That in turn reflected Hitler's increasing sense of his own mortality, combined with the self-fulfilling paradox that Hitler's self-defined role had no place for a genuine successor. But the reflexive compulsion to action was in this case arguably balanced by Model's photographs.
It makes for an interesting read. And though I believe many of the suppositions made above are close to being true, they are nevertheless the author's conjecture. Statements about Hitler's state of mind are not supported with any reference, and in all truth how could they possibly be? The work simply is not written in an academic style. The narrative is interesting and engaging, but I personally would not be citing anything from above as being authoratative on what compelled Hitler to make the decisions he did. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  Perseus 71 talk 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Thank you. Valid point. Guess I kind of glossed over that one. But the part I liked was the explicit details on Order of Battle that's backed with Quoted German Documents. While on the subject, I'd like to know what you'd think of John Mosier's Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front ? Too Revisionistic/controversial ? BTW my Speciality is Luftwaffe as well. But curousity regarding the huge Luftwaffe claims on Eastern front brought me to those two books.
In this case I must confess I have not read it, but looking at a review of the work by Joseph Bishop we see:(http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_4/deathride.php)
Mosier points out that in nearly all cases, Hitler was right in his decisions while his generals were wrong. The German officer caste was trained to seize major cities and especially capitals, but Hitler understood that modern wars were more economic in nature—conflicts to seize resources both to deny the enemy the ability to wage war while at the same time increasing one's own ability to do so. The author states that Hitler's generals simply could not comprehend this view. One of Hitler's accurate complaints about his generals was they understood nothing about 'the economic aspects of warfare'; the generalization could be extended into areas outside of economics. "The army commanders from the very first had envisioned the objective of a war with Russia in a traditional way: destruction of the armies and occupations of the old and new capitals, especially Moscow.", Mosier citing from Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader: "[Hitler] said that the raw materials and agriculture of Ukraine were vitally necessary for the future prosecution of the war. He spoke once again of the need of neutralizing the Crimea, 'the Soviet aircraft carrier for attacking the Rumanian oilfields.' For the first time I heard him use the phrase: 'My generals know nothing about the economic aspects of war.'"
There is some truth to what he says, and this was partly due to Seeckt's construction of the General Staff and even more so due to the intent of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was insecure and sought to dominate the politics of the German people. He routinely placed one party in conflict with another, making it difficult for an individual or group to attain the power and means to compete with him. As to the war effort, with his generals he purposely kept them in the dark on many issues. For instance, he told them Germany could not continue in the war if they could not secure the Caucasus oil fields to fuel her war effort. In making that case he justified his insistence on advancing the German army far beyond its means of support. His claim was false, for those oil fields never produced fuel for Germany, and yet Germany continued the fight for another three years. Furthermore, the effort to achieve them cost the 6th Army at Stalingrad and nearly cost the 1st Panzer Army and 17th Army as well. The Geo-political solution to the war the German generals assumed was a goal Hitler would steer Germany towards was never one Hitler would consider. Thus it was never in the cards for Germany. Hitler preferred fighting to utter destruction. If the German people could not produce the great triumph he insisted on, than it was best that Germany be destroyed. This was unknown to the German generals until the last year of the war. The result was Hitler got pretty close to the result he insisted upon.
In summary, it looks interesting to me but I do not believe the broad conclusions are supported by the record. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It Was Bletchley Wot Won It Honest To Goodness It Was[edit]

Sir Harry Hinsley, who worked at Bletchley Park during the war and is a professional historian, has noted the following:

Information decrypted by Ultra was given to the Soviets, which helped them prepare for the offensive. The Soviets had a spy at Bletchley Park (John Cairncross), who gave them decrypts of German military communications. Hinsley speculates that without Ultra, Germany would have won at Kursk, and "Hitler could have carved up Russia".[309]

The reference is link not substantiated. Regardless, is it necessary for Britain to claim the victory of Kursk for itself and have the last word on the matter in what has become the foremost public archive or record. I suggest a rewrite so that victory is not ascribed to a non-combatant in the last words of the article. Even if the statement "Hitler could have carved up Russia" could in any way be verified (it can not ) I would argue that their spy is a product of their military actions thus it is a self-refuting arguement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary nor correct to end the article with a British claim for credit for the victory. The last section you are referring to is an "analysis" section which essentially quotes the opinions of a number of authors, somewhat unusual for an article and in my opinion both woefully incomplete and entirely unnecessary. Generally, Wikipedia makes a statement and then the source that supports it is cited. In this case the Wikipedia article goes straight to the source, unvarnished, and quotes three of them. The article would be better off if the section were removed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you are being a tad over-sensitive here. It is not giving the "last word", merely the last of an extensive list of various aspects of the battle. In my experience, coming last in a list of this nature reflects on its importance. I would say keep. I am assuming we are discussing the BP former operative. If there are others scattered in the list i've missed, apologies. I hear yer GBD however. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
But if Hinsley's own words are red into properly - he does not actually state that in a way of personal speculation - he attributes said speculation to a "Russian counter-factual historian would say that if we didn't have the Ultra which we got in various ways, then we wouldn't have been able to win the battle of Kursk and Hitler would have been able to carve up Russia. This is perhaps another case . . ." - this is taken from the source cited within the article as the basis for the "carve up Russia" phrase - what Hinsley is saying here is quite different from speculation and an assertion he therefore makes is the one to the effect of "It is counter-factual to say that without Ultra decrypts Russia would have lost the battle and the war". I hope this understanding can be somehow better reflected within the article.
So can someone explain to me why "Sir Harry Hinsley, who worked at Bletchley Park during the war" gives him any credentials? If you check his bio here on Wiki, you find that he worked in traffic analysis. That would most likely not give access to actual decrypt content and certainly not to content analysis. Further, the kind of traffic that went via Enigma, i.e., Ultra intelligence, was at the low to medium level. This would reveal say some troop dispositions ... which were already evident to the Soviets from regular recon and their own sources apart from the obviousness of the benefit of removing the salient. Strategic intentions would only come from Tunny whose distribution was very restricted ... unlikely that a traffic analyst would be given access.kovesp (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Result Info Box[edit]

The current Result Infobox is a little lengthy, not in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict), and reads a little like a personal commentary/assessment of the results: "Despite greater losses of men and materiel, a decisive Soviet victory Germany's offensive power on the Eastern Front is crippled"

I suggest changing it to "Strategic Soviet Victory". "Strategic" implies that it was not tactical (to account for the stalemate and greater loss of material) and addresses what I think is the main concern of the current description (i.e. to get across the point that the Soviet Union won but with heavier losses). Also leaves any debate as to the extent to which German offensive power was "crippled" to the more detailed discussions in the article itself.

Any objections? 159.18.26.96 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kursk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 07:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. Going to be a tough job though, so I suppose a couple of editors who worked on the article watch this review page so as to ease the process a little. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 07:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First part[edit]

  • The caption of this photo says the soldiers are in combat, yet the image is dated June 1943 and the German offensive didn't start until July so clearly they are preparing for battle
YesY Fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the date part of the infobox, write the start date of the German offensive and the end of the Soviet counteroffensive as one time period rather than the two currently featured
YesY Fixed this. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kursk, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union" change this to "Kursk, Soviet Union"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Strategic Soviet Victory" change this to "Strategic Soviet victory, despite enormous casualties". Also, don't randomly capitalize the V in "victory"
YesY Done, although I'm not sure if it's necessary to "hedge" by writing in, "despite enormous casualties." GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GeneralizationsAreBad. Enormous Soviet casualties was the price the Soviet leadership (read Stalin) was willing to pay. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Statements and information covered and properly sourced in the body text of the article does not need to be referenced in the lead, that's just annoying and unnecessary
Some of the information in the lead, especially in its second and subsequent paragraphs, are not in the body of the article, and could easily become liable to challenge with cn tags in the future. EyeTruth (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a CN tag in the "Casualties and losses" section in the infobox
YesY Removed the statement, since it contradicted another number anyways. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove this image altogether, not much use of it in its current place and the "Background" section already has two images
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "As the Battle of Stalingrad (August 1942 to February 1943) slowly ground to its conclusion" change this to "As the Battle of Stalingrad slowly ground to its conclusion in February 1943"
YesY Fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "pressuring the depleted German forces" change this to "pressuring the exhausted German forces who had survived the winter"
YesY Tweaked the sentence. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Since, December 1942" drop comma
YesY Fixed embarrassing grammar issue. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Field Marshall Erich von Manstein" visibly misspelled word
YesY Fixed equally-embarrassing error. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "placed under the command of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein" already mentioned who Manstein is and his rank in the previous paragraph so simply sate "Manstein", nothing more
YesY Done, as well. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "With this restructuring von Manstein" again, just write "Manstein", drop the "von" bit. I'm going to assume that most of Manstein's mentions in this article comes with "von", so therefore I'm just going to mention this once and not spam it throughout this review, and remind you to remove all the "von" mentions in the article.
YesY Fixed 'em all. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "By February the Wehrmacht was in danger of a general collapse" when starting a new paragraph, always mention year with months
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 18 February Adolf Hitler" no need to write "Adolf". If you're going to write "Adolf Hitler" in the article, do it the very first time his name is mention in the body text. From that point on, always and simply and write "Hitler"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "hours before the Soviets liberated Kharkov" link the Second Battle of Kharkov
YesY I think it's already linked below. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hitler's distrust of the officers of the General Staff" change this to "Hitler's distrust of the General Staff and traditional officer corps"
YesY OK. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Though Hitler desired to relieve von Manstein and to blame him for the failure at Stalingrad" link Scapegoat somewhere in this sentence
YesY Good idea. Did it, too. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "he soon realized" change to "he concluded"
YesY Corrected. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "he could ill afford to lose the man largely regarded as the most capable commander in the army" change this to "he could ill afford to lose the man called "Hitler's most able general" by the American media"
YesY Also done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "by the Central Front" mention the fact that "Fronts" were the Soviet equivalent of army groups
YesY Snuck that in. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the winters of 1941/42 and 1942/43" change to "in the winters of 1941-42 and 1942-43"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "resulted in a marked shortage in artillery and infantry" change to "resulted in a shortage of artillery and infantry"
YesY Fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the burden would have to be carried by the panzer arm" change to "the burden would have to be carried by the panzer divisions, Germany's greatest assets in its campaign so far"
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "noting that his forces were too weak to launch such an attack" change "noting" to "believing"
YesY Also done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Von Manstein's SS Panzer Corps pushed on northwards and took Belgorod on 18 March" already mentioned in previous paragraphs so curb the whole thing
YesY Removed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the OKH Chief of Staff" link OKH
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The offensive was codenamed Zitadelle (Citadel)" add quotes to "Citadel"
YesY Corrected. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "to meet 9th Army east of Kursk" add "the" before "9th Army"
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "under the command of Paul Hausser" change to "under the command of the highly experienced Paul Hausser"
YesY Did it. Fixed a typo with Hausser later on. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "on the left flank of the Waffen SS troops" link Waffen-SS
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "while Army Detachment "Kempf" change to "while Army Detachment Kempf"
YesY Italicized it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "German soldiers in Orel pass by the Church of the Intercession, Spring 1943" don't mention seasons on the English Wikipedia as other English-speaking people on the other side of the world has totally different seasons; use months!
YesY Good point. Done too. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Buchterkirch (left) in discussion with General Model" change to "Ernst-Georg Buchterkirch (left) in conversation with General Model (center)"
YesY Fixed caption. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hitler rejected this idea. He did not want to give up so much terrain, even temporarily" change to "Hitler rejected this idea; he did not wish to give up so much terrain, even temporarily"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "spoke of the difficulties of rebuilding" change to "spoke about the difficulties of rebuilding
YesY Alright. Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Guderian argued strongly against the operation" this article has not yet mention Guderian so write his full name and rank
YesY Did this, too. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "stating "the attack was pointless" change to "later stating in his memoirs that he believed the attack was pointless".
YesY OK. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually the source cited, Guderian's memoir on p 307, states that he said this at the time in conference, that the attack was pointless. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Three days later OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht)" curb the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht bit and simply link OKW like you did with OKH earlie
YesY Linked as requested. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Guderian's opinion" change to "In his opinion"
YesY Yep, done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?" write this quote in a quotebox, but use {{quote| rather than {{quotebox|
YesY Placed in a quote. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Would be relatively easy to find a source supporting the fact Hitler postponed the attack again to 20 June rather than having a long, somewhat confusing footnote. Look into it and let me know what you find. In worst case, I'll do some digging myself.
  • "was profoundly concerned with the delays but he still supported the offensive" add comma before "but"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Finally on 1 July, Hitler announced that 5 July as the launch date of the offensive" add comma right after "Finally"
YesY I can't believe I missed that. Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "All units did unit training" drop the second mention of "unit" in this sentence, or replace with "special" ... or something similar
YesY Clunky sentence reworded. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "70 per cent of the German armour on the Eastern Front" I believe "per cent" is spelled as one word!
YesY Oops. Done! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The "German plans and preparation" subsection strikes me as too long. Every paragraph seems to contain useful, important information, but it's still too long. Curb between 2-5 sentences of each paragraph and it should be fine in length.
EyeTruth (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC). The length doesn't look abnormal compared to other sections of the article. The sections that really need to be trimmed are: "Battle of Prokhorovka", because it has its own article (GA status) and just repeats what's already there, and the "Analysis of Citadel", because it gives a subsection to each author (while conveniently excluding more than a dozen others). I'm not sure if the latter should exist at all, and the former can be easily trimmed down to two or three short paragraphs. EyeTruth (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm extremely tempted to remove "Analysis" altogether. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I also have thought the Analysis section should be removed. The editors have to choose whose analysis to list here, and as pointed out above much is left out. It could possibly be made into an article of its own, as there has been extensive analysis and much more worthwhile could be added to this subsection. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also support the removal of the "Analysis" section. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 09:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'm going to support removal, since:
  • It essentially repeats information already covered in the article.
  • It adds unnecessary bloat to an article which I fear is getting overly lengthy.
  • It just opens up a debate over which historians/opinions are considered "notable."
GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You can safely remove it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Much neater now. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Belatedly noticed this excision. Fully support. Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Second part[edit]

Will get to this later.

Will continue the review soon (that is, tonight!). Stay sharp! :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "via their spy in Britain, John Cairncross at the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park" add comma after "Cairncross"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Anastas Mikoyan wrote that on 27 March 1943" mention who Anastas Mikoyan is
YesY Alright. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Joseph Stalin notified him of a possible German attack in the Kursk sector" mention who Stalin was, such "dictator of the Soviet Union"
YesY Done. Did the same for Hitler, just for consistency. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "In a letter to Stavka" add "the" before "Stavka"
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Zhukov, 1941" no need to italicize "marshal of the Soviet Union" and drop link to Zhukov in the caption
YesY Corrected it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stalin consulted with his front-line commanders and senior officers of the General Staff, from 12 to 15 April 1943" drop comma
YesY Fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "thus creating the conditions for a major Soviet offensive" write "counteroffensive" instead
YesY Fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Somewhere in the fifth paragraph of the "Soviet plans and preparation" subsection, write that the Soviets build more than 686 bridges and had 300,000 wagon-loads of equipment delivered to the front line in preparations. Also mention that the 4,000 km of trenches dug by the Voronezh Front would have stretched from Moscow ... to Madrid! Use this excellent source to support these facts (fast-forward to 9:03 if you want to check for yourself).
YesYIncorporated. Didn't include 300,000 wagon-loads of supplies because its a vague weight measurement. Also didn't add "stretched from Moscow to Madrid" because it is a bit superfluous and could easily be "stretched from any-city-A to city-B". EyeTruth (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Soviets availed themselves of the labour of over 300,000 civilians" confusion sentence, tweak to something more like "the Soviets used labour of over 300,000 civilians"
YesY It's better now. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "In his letter of 8 April" also confusion, tweak to "In a letter dated 8 April"
YesY Sure. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Special training was provided to the Soviet infantry manning the defences to help them overcome the tank phobia that had been evident since the start of the German invasion" mention that this "special traning" was called "ironing"
YesY Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "were mostly effective against the Ferdinand tank destroyers" tweak to "were mostly effective against the massive Ferdinand tank destroyers"
YesY Done. EyeTruth (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to historian Anthony Beevor" link Beevor
YesY Did it. Removed a redundant quote and note, as well. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The main tank of the Soviet tank arm was the T-34, on which the Red Army attempted to concentrate production" tweak to "The main tank of the Soviet tank arm was the T-34, the best all-around tank design of the entire war, on which the Red Army attempted to concentrate production"
YesY OK, although I'll source this if necessary. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Soviet tank arm also contained" drop "Soviet" mention as that was made clear in the previous sentence
YesY Works for me. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Soviets assembled a large number of lend-lease tanks" link lend-lease
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "This amounted to 26 per cent of the total manpower of the Red Army, 26 per cent of its mortars and artillery, 35 per cent of its aircraft and 46 per cent of its tanks" spell "per cent" as one word :)
YesY Wow... fixed. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "and the Soviet Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily, "Military Air Forces", or V.V.S.)" curb all this and simply write VVS as the official name and other nicknames has already been used previously. Also, don't write VVS as V.V.S, please ensure that all VVS mentions are done without periods!
YesY Done. EyeTruth (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Luftwaffe forces in the east were further depleted with squadrons being shifted back to Germany to defend against the increasing Allied bombing campaign" mention that, since mid-1943, three out of four Luftwaffe aircraft was used to defend the homeland from the Western allies
Needs a source. EyeTruth (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's something I did find: "Of the total aircraft available at the end of June, 38.7 percent were in the east..." (page 158). GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
YesY I have put it in. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Luftwaffe continued to make use of the Junkers Ju 87G Stuka" tweak to "the Luftwaffe continued to make use of the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive-bombers". Also, "Stuka" should not be written in italics consistently furher down the article (as it does currently) and should only be written in quotes in the first mention
YesY Did it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "was the Bordkanone 3,7 cm" replace italics with quotes
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the months preceding the battle, Luftflotte 6" link Luftflotte 6
YesY Linked. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "such as the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik" again, replace italics with quotes
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Luftwaffe flak units protected bridges and were drawn into the ground combat" tweak this caption to "Luftwaffe flak units protecting bridges during pre-battle preparations"
YesY Done. I simply reduced it to "Luftwaffe flak units". EyeTruth (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "A Soviet machine gun position at Kursk" also tweak this caption to "A Soviet machine gun in action during the Battle of Kursk"
YesY Tweaked accordingly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do more tomorrow. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great, ping me when you're confident all points have been addressed. think it's much better to do this review section by section to ensure a thorough review. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
GeneralizationsAreBad and EyeTruth, please look at this edit and let me know what you think, I think it's important to include such an image. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I like it, just stick a footnote on and it works for me. It's a bit blurry, but it should work. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree the caption might need some tweaking to sound more encyclopedia-like. Got a suggestion? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Good addition. It would be much better if it's clearer. EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for any misunderstanding; I was actually referring to the photo, not the caption. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, you are against including the photo in the article or ... ? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be so vague. Yes, I support keeping it in. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no problem then. I'll continue the review soon. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Third part[edit]

Tomorrow. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "the south, the 4th Panzer Army and Army Detachment "Kempf" italics not quotes. I see by a quick glance this happens all over the article. So as not to further spam this review, I'm just going to remind you to write all Kempf mentions in italics and not quotes this time
YesY I believe I have these fixed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "were attached to the Großdeutschland Division in the XLVIII Panzer Corps of Army Group South" link Infantry Regiment Großdeutschland
YesY Done. Are we sure we want the infantry regiment and not the division? Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite right, my mistake. Link Panzer-Grenadier-Division Großdeutschland! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The wiki-link has been switched to the division. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Red Army used two Fronts, the equivalent of army groups" already mentioned earlier that Fronts were their kind of army groups so curb that bit
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Comparison of strength" subsection might be considered overkill of historical analysis. Furthermore, it contain tables which state facts very closely related to what is already covered and explained earlier
Agree . That subsection needs to be revised and incorporated into the other subsections of "opposing forces". EyeTruth (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Change the title of the subsection "Preliminary actions" to something that indicates much more strongly that this is about the part where the battle begins. My suggestion would be to rename it simply "Battle" and create a bunch of subsections further down
The problem here is that we are referring to actions that occured on the night of July 4th. The German battle officially commenced on July 5th, but the defenders across from the XLVIII Panzer Corps had control of high ground which was needed to allow direction of the artillery fire, so XLVIII Panzer Corps undertook "preliminary" actions the night just prior to the start of the battle. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You got a point, but let's get some more opinions. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No strong feelings here either way. I favor "Preliminary actions" or "Opening actions," just to distinguish it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I like "Opening actions". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"Preliminary action" is fine with me. "Opening action" would fit the fighting on 5 July. EyeTruth (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "with just nine tanks and 31 assault guns" write nine with the number nine as WP:NUMERAL says you should not switch between using words and numbers in the same sentence
YesY Fixed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Given Model's tactics, even if a breakthrough did occur, the briefest delay in bringing the panzer divisions up would give the Soviets time to react and plug the gap" I propose removing the "Given Model's tactics" bit as it sounds like a WP:NPOV violation.
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "slowed the attack down" remove "down"
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The German attack had been along a 45-kilometre (28 mi) wide front. However, due to extensive minefields and the tenacity of the Soviet defenders, the attack had stalled" all of this has just been mentioned in a different wording in the ending sentence of the paragraph right above!
YesY Removed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Of the 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion's 45 Ferdinands sent into battle" don't write Ferdiands in italics if its the tanks that are being referenced
YesY Fixed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rokossovsky, p. 266" this should be a beautiful blue link like the rest of the references in the article
I assume it's citing Rokossovsky's memoirs, but I don't currently have that text on me. I'll see if I can find another source mentioning dug-in Soviet tanks. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think all five books I have mention it. I'll search for page numbers. EyeTruth (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
YesY Replaced it with another source. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Ferdinands were called into action" again, don't italicize Ferdinands, just like you don't italicize Tiger tank mentions
YesY Fixed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "called into action to take Hill 253.5" mention what Hill 253.5 refers to otherwise it only triggers more questions that it answers
YesY Addressed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Model ordered his forces to halt to reorganize" tweak to "Model ordered his forces to halt and reorganize"
YesY Done, though not by me. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 9 July, a meeting was held, at the headquarters of the XLVII Panzer Corps" remove commas in this sentence
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "were to be bypassed and the schwerpunkt" as it's a foreign word, capitalize schwerpunkt
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "By this point, both the German and the Soviet commanders realised that the outcome of the battle had already been decided" is this the consensus among historians or the sole opinion of Healy 2008? Was do we know about this?
  • "KTB AOK9 9 July (Daily war diary of the 9th Army). (Frieser 2007, p. 110)" in this case, simply adding Frieser 2007, p. 110 would be okay instead of this footnote
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 12 July, the Soviets launched Operation Kutuzov: their counter-offensive upon the Orel salient" replace colon with comma
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Two Fronts, the Bryansk Front and the Western Front" if you're gonna' mention the specific fronts why start by writing "Two Fronts"? Tweak to "The Bryansk and the Western Fronts"
YesY Done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Gunbirddriver for taking care of most of this section. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, nice job. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth part[edit]

Also tomorrow... :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've not initiated the fourth part yet, been so busy IRL today. Will continue tomorrow, count on that! Cheers for understanding. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "At dawn on 5 July, the Grossdeutschland Division" just write Grossdeutschland
YesY Sure, done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Attempts by the Red Air Force" the VVS was never called "Red Air Force". Change to Soviet Air Force or VVS
YesY That always nagged me. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "At dawn, 5 July, the three divisions" tweak to "At dawn, on 5 July, the three divisions"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Soviet defensive belts, at 1300 hours, the 2nd SS Panzer Division's vanguard" write "1300 hours" as "13:00"
YesY Done! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "which were quickly dispatched. 40 more Soviet tanks soon engaged the division" when starting a new sentence, numbers should always be written with words, not the number itself
YesY Changed it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "by 1610 hours" again, write it as "by 16:10"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "aid from the III Panzer Corps to his right, but III Panzer Corps was unable to assist as it was occupied with challenges of its own" tweak to "aid from the III Panzer Corps to his right, but the panzer crops had no units to spare"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "German crews, working in "boiling" tanks in sweltering weather conditions, "frequently suffered from heat exhaustion" remove comma and quotes (don't remove quotes at boiling)
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "and Corps Raus (commanded by Erhard Raus)" if you can find it, mention Raus's rank
  • "Clemens Graf Kageneck, battalion commander, described it thus" add "a" before "battalion commander"
YesY OK. Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Those units of the division that had crossed the river, launched an attack led by Tigers on Stary Gorod, which was repulsed due to poorly cleared minefields and strong resistance" remove the first comma
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "engineers constructed a heavy bridge enabling the Tigers to cross, where they joined the force on the far side" remove comma
The comma looks fine to me. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "the furthest advance by Army Detachment "Kempf" of the day" italics not quotes!
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Erhard Raus, later wrote" full name already mentioned earlier, just use surname
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The advancing infantry surprised them and had no difficulty ferreting them out. But when the infantry reached the two to five-kilometre deep zone of the battle positions prepared in the preceding months, they had to make extensive use of hand grenades in order to mop up [a] maze of densely dug-in trenches and bunkers, some of which were a dozen or more feet deep. At the same time, artillery and flak fired counter-battery missions against the enemy heavy weapons that had resumed fire from rear positions. They also fired on reserves infiltrating through the trench system, as well as against [Soviet] medium artillery" I suggest omitting parts of this quote to make more readable and smaller
I suggest omitting the last sentence, and maybe the penultimate one. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this battle lasted for more than a month, is it a good idea to have sections like "First day summary"? I agree it's nicely sourced and factually correct, but summarizing the events of a single day in an article about the largest tank crash in history seems counterproductive. I'm in favor of deleting the whole section.
This happened because there was a time some editors, myself inclusive, were considering whether to limit the scope of the article to only Operation Citadel since the other two operations have their own articles, but a conclusion was never reached. But the article, anyways, seems to have ended up focusing mostly on Operation Citadel. For Citadel though, the bulk of the German offensive action happened in just the first week. Anyways, I support removing that subsection, or compressing and integrating it into the other subsections. EyeTruth (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
YesY Compressed and integrated into appropriate subsections. EyeTruth (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think "The battle progresses" is a encyclopedia-like title, sounds like a novel or documentary statement! Got anything better?
YesY. Changed to "Further German progress". EyeTruth (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove the completely unnecessary cite from this pictures caption
YesY Done. No idea why it was cited. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "at Prokhorovka from the rear. 1st and 2nd SS Panzer divisions" in line with my earlier comment about never using numbers after period, tweak this to "at Prokhorovka from the rear. First and Second SS Panzer divisions"
YesY I just placed "the" in front of "1st." It works better. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
BulbB Or we can use Leibstandarte, Totenkpf and Das Reich, and keep everything consistent. Currently the article has a mix of the two nomenclatures. We'll eventually need to stick to one. EyeTruth (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "To Leibstandarte's right" add "the" before Leibstandarte
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Unbeknownst" cool academic word, but since we are a popular encyclopedia serving the general public, it should be replaced with a more commonly-used synonym
YesY "Unknown" should do. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "on the night of 11/12" tweak to "on the night of 11-12"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Throughout the night, German frontline troops could hear the ominous sounds of Soviet tank engines to the east as the 18th and 29th Tank Corps moved into their assembly areas" whole sentence is unsourced???
I checked Battle of Prokhorovka, which contains virtually the same sentence, but it's not sourced there, either. I will do some looking. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
So far, I haven't found much. If anyone could check their sources for information on the prelude to Prokhorovka, I would really appreciate the help. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps User:EyeTruth or User:Irondome, who both worked on Prokhorovka, have something? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
A source was never included when that passage was added to the Prokhorovka article by Gunbird (and it still made it to GA :D). However, I think I have sources that corroborate that info as is or to an extent. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
A source like that would be better than no source at all. Also, when this is done, I'll do the last part of the review. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
YesY I believe the passage came from Nipe's book, but I don't have that anymore. I've replaced the passage with Clark's account, which simply repeated stuff that were in LAH headquarters combat reports. EyeTruth (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Luftwaffe air superiority, over the battlefield, also contributed to the Soviet losses" remove commas
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "partly due to the VVS being directed against the units flanking II SS Panzer Corps" don't write VVS in italics
YesY Done. EyeTruth (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "German records indicate three to five tanks destroyed" Ima' take a wild guess and assume the Germans destroyed more than just five tanks during the Battle of Prokhorovka, right? RIGHT? I believe a "hundreds" mention is missing in this sentence.
YesY It was worded poorly. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • While I certainly don't want to distract from the task at hand, if any of you would be interested in collaborating to get Battle of Rzhev, Summer 1942 to GA, it would be great working with you. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm going on vacation the 5 July, but I'll be happy to review it once I get back. I'm sure EyeTruth and Irondrome would also like to work on the article, just like Barbarossa and now Kursk. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's quite at the review stage yet... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, we can start handing out Million Awards once we get this to GA, since it receives (around) over 450,000 views annually. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Last part![edit]

  • "Hitler summoned Kluge and Manstein to his headquarters at Rastenburg, in East Prussia" remove comma
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "This criticism has been echoed by officers in the post-war German Army (Bundeswehr)" italicize Bundeswehr
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Engelmann, Zitadelle p. 5." just a suggestion, but this would look good as a harv ref
  • "With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front ... Needless to say the [Soviets] exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative" fine quote, but change it to "{{quote|" rather than "{{quotation|".
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Western Allied landings in Italy opened up a new front" this sentence contains a link to the invasion of Sicily which has already been linked earlier. Remove it!
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Churchill quote, it adds nothing and including his opinion on Kursk might be considered a WP:NPOV violation by some (like me!).
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Grigoriy Krivosheyev" change to "Russian military historian Grigoriy Krivosheyev"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Steppe Front lost 23,272 irrecoverable casualties and 75,001 medical casualties, for a total of 98,273" there is a CN tag at the end of this sentence!
YesY fixed myself. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "During Operation Kutuzov", don't italicize Kutuzov
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "During Polkovodets Rumyantsev" don't italicize this either
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to Christer Bergström" tweak to "According to historian Christer Bergström"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Same goes for Karl-Heinz Frieser
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In facing Operation Kutuzov" still no italics
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "During Polkovodets Rumyantsev" no italics, last time ima' spam this, take care of them all
YesY Done. (Whew!) GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "after Hitler had ordered a stop to the German offensive, Guderian sent in the following preliminary assessment" drop link to Guderian in this sentence
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't write Guderian's quote below in italics... whoever wrote this section really loved italics
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Antony Beevor writes that" Beevor and that he's a historian is already mentioned erlier, tweak to "Beevor writes that"
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Christer Bergström presents different figures" same goes for Bergström, just write "Bergström presents different figures
YesY Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The books in the "References" sections should be in alpahabetic order. Fix that
YesY fixed myself. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay people, these are my last comments. Once these have been addressed, I'ma pass it!! I will be leaving for vacation tomorrow at around 2:00 so please do your best to ensure that all the remaining issues have been fixed by then, otherwise you would have to wait until the 12 July! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, having taken care of the last issues in this review and also made several other minor fixes and changes here and there, I'm going to pass this article for GA-status! Amazing work everyone, this is truly an important article, thank you for all for participating in the review. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are so many pictures from the German side?[edit]

There seems to be an over representation of images from the German side (eg. showing "exhausted German soldiers"). Is the reason simply that there was not Russian images of the battle so it is necessary to use Nazi Government images?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be more German images of the battle on Wikimedia than the Soviet ones, probably because there are more German images in the public domain. Nevertheless, Soviet pictures of the battle are available. The other reason is that most English speakers/readers tend to understand the battle from the German perspective, because there are more books in English that approach the Battle from a German perspective (but that doesn't mean biased) than from the Soviet perspective. This is because Western historians who wanted to paint an accurate picture of the battle couldn't do it from the Soviet perspective until the 1990s when Soviet archives started becoming available to the public. But even so, many Western historian still have to rely on Russian historians and a handful of Western historians to summarize Soviet archival data, because they can't access it themselves due to language and bureaucratic barriers. EyeTruth (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that Russian material may be difficult to acquire but I'm just asking about images and there are only around a dozen on this page so it shouldn't be hard to find 4 Russian ones to make it an even NPOV. In the meantime I'm going to change unsubstantiated captions like "exhausted German soldiers" to something supported by facts.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)