Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Stalingrad/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Battle of Stalingrad[edit]

No self-nom. Very good article about a very important historical event. Gerrit CUTEDH 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment please reduce the image sizes to around 240-270 px. Images larger than these take a longer time to load on narrowband connections. (ref to that 650px image) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment It's a while since I read Beevors's Stalingrad but I recall him reporting that the German forces included a large number of Russian auxiliaries (Soviet POWs who had changed "sides"). This doesn't seem to be brought out in the article.

--Sf 11:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment "helpworkers" (hilfs-somethingorother in german) were not a significant factory in Army Group South, Vlasovites were even less significant. Should be treated under Vlasov / helpworkers. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply Russian/Soviet "Hiwis" or Hilfswilligers may have comprised up to 60,000 of the 6th Army's strength (Not Army Group South) at the time that operation Uranus closed the "Kessel". --Sf 08:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures must be agreed upon and substantiated by reliable sources. See the articles talk-page.--itpastorn 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Further to this issue of casualty figures there is clearly an ongoing dispute happening on the page regarding this matter which (IMHO) is unlikely to be resolved very soon. --Sf 12:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This can use more ilinks and pics. Also, I'd like to read more about post-IIWW impact - for example, on the city's inhabitans (were there any memorials, festivities, special statuses?). The 'Dramatization' section should be expand into a normal text section describing the related texts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment As I recall (imperfectly), the initial defence of the city was conducted by young women volunteer aa gunners who stayed at their posts and actually stopped the advancing panzer columns until they ran out of ammunition and were overrun. This isn't in the article either. It may seem a minor point but it sets the tone for what followed. --Sf 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds a tad idealized to me. Are you sure it's not just Soviet propaganda? / Peter Isotalo 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Trivia like this doesn't belong on the battle page. Probably Soviet depictions of heroic women fighters in the Great Patriotic War would be a better place for this stuff, placing them alongside the nightwitches, partisans, logistic, communication, command and medical Soviet women soldiers would be more appropriate. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Talk about a super-crufty (and POV:ed) title. I'd say it's pretty darned sexist to imply that female participation in the Soviet-German war should be considered "trivia". / Peter Isotalo 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: If the article contains a Historiography section covering the major historical attitudes towards the battle before the end of the vote, great. Otherwise, nope. A major historical article like this must address the historiographical issues before becoming a featured article. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Object: I've now firmed up to an object on this. In my view "The battle in the city" section needs to be either expanded or reworked. Much of the fighting, particularly initially, involved not just trained troops but workers from factory militias - including defending their own factories and trying to keep them in production at the same time. There is also the issue of the use of civilians by both sides - eg women and children in mine clearing units. Also some possibly unique features of the battle don't come out. E.g. Tanks being produced in Stalingrad during the battle and being driven straight to the front line by volunteer crews (without even being painted and not even having gunsights). --Sf 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Forgot to mention that I can't find reference to Nikita Khrushchev's role as a senior political commissar in the battle. --Sf 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Re mine clearing - now realised where I got this. Much of the mine clearing and disposal of unexploded munitions after the battle was done by women and teenagers. This aspect and the aftermath of the battle in the city warrants exploration. --Sf 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • this looks like a good article which deserves to become featured, unfortunately reluctantly but strongly object. a) It's impossible to tell which reference backs up which fact. This article is one in which facts may easily be disputed; Neo-Nazis may vandalise etc. Please provide inline references. b) From my understanding, Stalingrad is one of the first places where Hitler's interference with the German army had serious negative consequences. This context should be covered, and particularly the later disasters which it foreshadowed (see German WWII strongholds to start with). Mozzerati 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support It could use a few more references and perhaps some "tidying up", but I don't think I could have done a better job at tackling such a long, complex and decisive battle. Neo-Nazis be damned! It deserves FA status. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)