Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Second Battle of Kharkov/1

Second Battle of Kharkov

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is more of a test than anything. I'm nominating this because there are lots of [non-primary source needed] tags that I feel are important to address. Though, if that's not a problem with GA criteria then feel free to vote keep. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes primary sources are unreliable for statements, other times they are suboptimal and wouldn't qualify as a high-quality reliable source needed for WP:FA? purposes. Could you give one or two examples where you believe the primary sources do not meet the lower GA standards and are unreliable for the text they support? Femke (alt) (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if their unreliable but there are some sentences that would probably be better with secondary sources such as

The German defences were knocked out by air raids, artillery-fire and coordinated ground attacks
The primary Soviet leader was Timoshenko, a veteran of World War I and the Russian Civil War. Timoshenko had achieved some success at the Battle of Smolensk in 1941 but was eventually defeated
By 14 May the Red Army had made impressive gains, but several Soviet divisions were so depleted that they were withdrawn and Soviet tank reserves were needed to defeat the German counter-attacks; German losses were estimated to be minimal, with only 35–70 tanks believed to have been knocked out in the 3rd and 23rd Panzer divisions.
Soviet troops in the northern pincer suffered even more than those in the south. They achieved spectacular success the first three days of combat, with a deep penetration of German positions.
Although Timoshenko's forces successfully regrouped on 21 May, he ordered a withdrawal of Army Group Kotenko by the end of 22 May, while he prepared an attack for 23 May, to be orchestrated by the 9th and 57th Armies. Although the Red Army desperately attempted to fend off advancing Wehrmacht and launched local counterattacks to relieve several surrounded units, they generally failed. By the end of May 24, Soviet forces opposite Kharkov had been surrounded by German formations, which had been able to transfer several more divisions to the front, increasing the pressure on the Soviet flanks and finally forcing them to collapse.
And honestly most of the Analysis and conclusions section

There's also an citation needed tag in the article too. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, there is a lot of OR/Soviet propaganda in there. A fair bit of work would be needed to sort it out. Might be easier to start over with up to date RSs. The recent A class review, although to a higher standard, is interesting. What is the protocol for commenting on these? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GAR process is simpler than FAR; you can immediately say delist if you believe the article does not meet the GA criteria. Given the examples by Onegreatjoke (especially the later ones, with words like "spectacular", and your concerns), delist is probably best. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It is well off GAN standard as is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Delist is the best hope for this page. I am willing to look past some primary sources, but using primary sourcing for the 'Analysis and conclusions' raises red flags. Additionally, there are some citations missing and there are serious WP:POV issues that are obvious to anyone.

@Mzajac, I see you were working on this after the GAR began, do you intend on trying to save this page? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just saw the inconsistent use of place names and thought I’d identify some of them. Was led there by this discussion in a notice board. —Michael Z. 20:00, 17 February 2023 (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.