Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2020 [1].

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an offensive that included the only Waffen-SS parachute operation of World War II, the mission of which was to kill or capture Josip Broz Tito, the leader of the Yugoslav Partisans. It was a coup de main operation, involved direct action by a parachute and glider-borne force landing at Tito's headquarters at Drvar in modern-day Bosnia and a planned linkup with ground forces converging on the town. The operation failed due to fierce Partisan resistance, the failure of German intelligence agencies to share limited intelligence on Tito's exact location, and lack of contingency planning by the junior officer commanding the airborne force. It has gone through GAN and Milhist ACR, and a bit of spring-cleaning, and hopefully balances the material available in Western, German and Yugoslav sources. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The maps are all stated to be PD-Gov. Although I'm not an expert on post-Yugoslav copyright law, most European countries (unlike the US government) retain copyright on most government works. I don't see how these maps are part of legislation, laws, decrees, or administrative proceedings, so I don't think that they are free use.
  • They are definitely free use. They are official materials created by the Yugoslav government (the Yugoslav National Army) for the purpose of officially informing the public about the history of the war, per Art 8.2.1 of the copyright law of Croatia, which is a successor state. In the case of the Serbian successor state, per Art 6.(2) of the copyright law of Serbia they are official materials of the Yugoslav National Army (a state body) in performance of its public function of informing the public about the history of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, B&H only exempts "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration and judiciary (laws, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments and alike)" This is not related to legislation, administration or judiciary so still protected. Slovenia exempts only "official legislative, administrative and judicial texts". So it does appear that Croatia and Serbia have more expansive waiving of government copyright, but Commons copyright rules don't make it clear whether the more lenient jurisdiction or the more strict one should be followed. buidhe 05:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was published in Belgrade, so logically the Serbian one is the most appropriate of the successor states to use. I don't see what the relevance of Slovenia is, none of this happened there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant law doesn't mention place of publication as a consideration for succession of copyright. buidhe 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Titova pecina prije rata.jpg—apparently there's no freedom of panorama in Bosnia. The cabin is the focus of the image and it may be sufficiently original for copyright protection.
  • You are right that B-H doesn't have FoP, but free use of works permanently located in places accessible to the public is permitted, per Art 52(1) of the B-H copyright law. That is the case here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article 52(1) says "The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted." It says nothing about "only non-commercial reproduction", where are you getting that from? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.[2010 Article 52(2)]" buidhe 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is this image used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this says is that "non-commercial reproduction" of publicly located structures is OK. But for Wikipedia purposes, "free" requires it being OK for commercial use. buidhe 00:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, OK. Does this apply if the building was extensively damaged during the Bosnian War (after this picture was taken) and had to be rebuilt? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would still apply even if the building was damaged and needed to be rebuilt, although that might make room for a fair-use claim. Alternatively, I'm not sure of the threshold of originality in B-H - this might fall below it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images are fine, although I had to crop some potentially copyrighted background out of one of them. buidhe 08:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "the German XV Mountain Corps and their allies" I don't think that you mean that they were allies of the German XV Mountain Corps.
  • "he was designated Marshal of Yugoslavia and prime minister." Why the upper case M?
  • "(0.62 mi)"! Maybe insert sigfig=1?
  • "The Unac River ran along the base of the ridge line above the cave" This reads as if the river ran above the cave.
  • " the Tito Escort Battalion which was responsible for his personal safety." I think "his" → 'Tito's'.
  • "At the time of Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung)" Is there a reason why the translation to German is not given in the lead?
  • Optional: consider making the current sections 2, 3 and 4 sub-sections of "Background".
  • "Apart from Partisan headquarters and related organisations close in and around Drvar" Maybe delete "close"?
  • "there were between 12,000 and 16,000 Partisans" Genuine and open question: what is the justification for the upper case P in this particular usage?
  • It is capitalised in all the reliable sources, I expect to differentiate them from the generic "partisans", which could mean any irregulars. There were a lot of different irregular forces in Yugoslavia in WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that and all of the other cases in this article - however oddly they read to me - follow what seems to be the RS style. (Although you boot some of the Medieval RSs equivalents straight out of my articles ;-).) It is this one, singular, case where an upper case is particularly debatable. But if you are content with it, fair enough.
  • "The nearest large Partisan formation to Drvar was the 3rd Lika Proletarian Brigade" Was "1st Proletarian Corps" not a Partisan formation? Or are you not considering it "large"? Or does "immediate vicinity" mean more than 10 km away?
  • only the corps HQ was located closer, its formations were spread out, and the nearest large formation was this brigade, part of the 6th Lika Division. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see 'all 10 km or more away' as synonymous with "in the the immediate vicinity". I think that the latter needs tweaking.
I have tweaked this para, have a look and see if it is clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 kilometres (6.2 mi)" sigfig?
  • "and 8th Corps" 'the'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Three organisations attempted to" Possibly insert 'German' (or 'Axis')?
  • "both the Chetniks and Ustaše Militia" 'the Ustaše Militia'?
  • "after von Weichs had issued his orders" What orders? None have been mentioned.
Reads better.
  • "An ad-hoc Kampfgruppe Panzergrenadier Sturmbattalion manned by officer cadets" "manned" reads a little oddly. Perhaps 'made up of' or 'consisting of'?
  • Foreign words should use eg {{lang|de|xxxx}} wrap arounds, not ''xxxx''.
MOS:FOREIGNITALIC states "The {{lang}} template and its variants support all ISO 639 language codes, correctly identifying the language and automatically italicizing for you. Please use these templates rather than just manually italicizing non-English material."; MOS:OTHERLANG "Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}, which uses ISO 639 language codes, thus: {{lang|fr|Assemblée nationale}}". WP:NONENGLISHTITLE says "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to jargon, which should be explained somehow."; which to me suggests that, for example, that instead of kampfgruppe, 'battlegroup' might be the better word, when it is not part of a formal title.
I think linking is sufficient. Battlegroup can have a more formal meaning than kampfgruppe, which is a more ad hoc organisation. Lang templates now throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with significant demolition and mining of roads" Is "significant" necessary?
  • well, it is more than insignificant demolition and mining of the roads. Is there a specific reason why we shouldn't use "significant"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point, and no alternative springs readily to mind. I wouldn't use it, but it's not my nomination.
  • "penetrate deeply into Partisans’ rear" 'the'.
  • "had become apparent by now, serious reorganisation of Partisan dispositions was now required." Consider deleting the second "now".
  • Aftermath: the detail given about Operation Flounced seems undue to me.
I still don't see what it is doing in the article at all, but now trimmed it doesn't, quite, trigger my personal criterion 4 threshold.

A lucid explanation of a complicated series of events. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Gog. I reckon I've addressed all your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. A couple of points above where I have come back at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed those additional points now, Gog the Mild, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I've always been interested in this topic, but for some reason never enough to seek out a proper account of it - make of that what you will! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The infobox states that this was a "German operational failure" while the last section states that it was simply a failure. Could this be simplified to "German failure"?
  • I'm not entirely comfortable with the behaviour of Tito's mistress being labelled "hysteria" - it's hardly irrational for a civilian to panic or become distressed while making a difficult escape from a surprise attack by elite troops, especially given the terrible fate she faced if she was captured. I'd suggest using a different term.
  • "The drop zone was within fields of fire of the Partisans to the west of Drvar, and they suffered many casualties during the drop." - who the "they" is here is unclear (the paratroopers, I think?)
  • "The ground forces were also subjected to Allied air attacks by the Balkan Air Force throughout the day" - I'd suggest noting here (rather than just in the last section) that this was the result of the British mission calling in air strikes Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Another Yugoslav topic and WWII battle keep them going.

  • Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung, Knight's move) --> " The Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung, Knight's move)"? And unlink German is too comment.
  • The British and Soviet military missions to the Partisans were also Brtish is a too comment term.
  • At the time of Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung) --> Unlink German.
  • British ranks had before and during WWII a hyphen between the words.
  • with the Corps headquarters located in the village of Mokronoge, 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) east of Drvar Per MOS:UNITNAMES "kilometre" here should be an abbreviation.
  • Trubar villages some 10 kilometres (6 mi) south and southwest of Drvar Same as above.
  • Leutnant Kirchner of that unit had Kirchner who? Same with Zavadil?
  • On Hitler's orders, SS-Sturmbannführer --> "On Adolf Hitler's orders, SS-Sturmbannführer"
  • cave near the village of Bastasi, 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) west of Drvar "kilometre" should be "km".
  • southwest of the centre of Drvar, nearly 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) Same as above.
  • destroy the British military mission in the village of Prnjavor 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) Same as above.
  • referred to as Kampfgruppe Willam after its commander, Oberst Willam Willam who?
  • landed in front of the Bastasi cave 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) to the west of Drvar "kilometre" should be "km". Also convert isn't needed here it's already convert before.
  • About 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) further east on the road to Mokronoge Same as above.
  • aiming to cover the 20 kilometres (12 mi) to Drvar as quickly "kilometre" should be "km".
  • task of reaching Mliništa (20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Ključ) Same as above. Also convert isn't needed here it's already convert before.
  • had reached positions some 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) "kilometre" should be "km".
  • Tito was delivered by the Royal Navy escort destroyer HMS Blackmore Sea of blue here.
  • I'm not a fan of a one-sentence section.
  • was initially located in a cave below a ridge line about Merge ridge and line.
  • a rail line ran along the ridge line above the cave Same as above.
  • break through Partisan resistance east of the Merge break and through.
  • The second wave of parachute troops were dropped --> "The second wave of parachute troops was dropped"?
  • 3rd Krajina Brigade and was pushed back all the way to its start --> "3rd Krajina Brigade and was pushed back to its start"?
  • despite the fact that the 92nd Motorised Regiment --> "even though the 92nd Motorised Regiment"
  • with the aim of securing the main supply road from --> "to secure the main supply road from"
  • overnight on the evening of 24 May 1944 I do not believe the year is here necessary. It was already mentioned in a couple of sentences before.
  • took Bosanski Petrovac without a fight about 8:00 I think you forgot a nought here at the time?
  • Why is this the 1944 called? If there is another "Operation Rösselsprung" then we should add an "about" template.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, CPA-5. All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some more comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to me as a support. I hope more of WWII battle-related articles will come in the near future; hey wait there is, Nick-D has nominated another WWII battle-related article. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SR by Factotem - Support[edit]

Unsourced statements

  • Nitpick: It's not unambiguously clear that the infobox start date of 25 May is supported in the article. Suggest beginning the "Operation" section with "The offensive began at 05:00 on 25 May..." and end the para with "...were flown on that day."
  • Some of the bullet points in the "Ground forces" end without references, which makes them look unsourced. The optics of this look bad because there are refs embedded in the bulleted list. Is it possible to end each bullet point with a ref? Alternatively, I would accept confirmation here that the ref at the end of the first sentence in that section (#26) is the ref for all bullet points, which is usual for lists like this.
  • William Elliot apears in the infobox but is nowhere else mentioned in the article, so is unsourced
  • I can't find in the main body of the article any support/sources for the strength figures given for either side.

Technical checks

  • All look good; no "p" miscounts, endashes where they should be, publisher locations all good.
  • Where they exist, I've checked the Gbooks links. I personally think it's a mistake to add these; there are mismatches in editions, but the different editions all appear to have the same pagination, so nothing to which I can reasonably object here.
InternetArchiveBot has been adding links to archive.org, not to gbooks. Every such change I've checked on articles in my watchlist has been consistent with the rest of the details listed in the article bibliography. I'm so bored in lockdown that I checked the article history, and it was you who added the gbook link in this edit (if I knew what the emoticon for light-hearted climbing the wall smiley face was, I'd insert it here). I deleted the link myself. If you choose to put the correct link, the only thing I'd really have a problem with would be an edition mismatch with the rest of the book details. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously haven't been paying enough attention. I used to put them in early on, but rarely do it now. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links checker appears to be down, so can't do that.
Ext link checker working again now and reports no errors (not even the 404 err mentioned below, which is odd) Factotem (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • GBooks link for Greentree's Knight's Move = 404
  • Naimark, Norman M. and Gibianskiĭ, L are editors, not authors. The one ref cited to that source appears to be to a chapter written by Vladimir Volkov
  • Nitpick: you could add orig-year=1966 to the information for Stein's book in the bibliography
  • I'm not at all able to comment on the foreign language sources, particularly the Yugoslav. I would nitpick the translation of Geschlagen as Lost for Rendulic's work. My far from fluent knowledge of German tells me the German word for lost is Verloren, and that Geschlagen is better translated as beaten, but not an issue.
  • The Yugoslav sources are formation histories in the main published by the Yugoslav government. Given they, like the German accounts, are prone to romanticism at times, I have used them judiciously. Odić is the principal high quality source in Serbo-Croatian, and is highly reliable. The title of Rendulic's book is covered in an answer below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, publishers of Kumm's work used as a source, has a reputation for publishing 'romancer' works, but Kumm is cited only twice for basic and, as far as I can tell, non-controversial facts.
  • They are uncontroversial facts, not opinion or propaganda, and I think Kumm can be considered reliable for such things. I have not used his opinion or anything that could be considered "romantic". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, Verlag Welsermühl, publisher of Rendulic's work, is, according to the WP article on Erich Kern, "a far-right revisionist publishing house that sought to portray a pro-German version of Second World War history." Another concern I have with citing Rendulic's work is that he is listed as a participant, which makes him a primary source. He is cited only once, though it's not clear what exactly is being cited to him (sentence is double-cited). Can you clarify what in the sentence "After three days of fighting, the combined forces returned to Vis. The Partisans suffered losses of 67 dead, 308 wounded and 14 missing, and Allied units suffered 60 dead, 74 wounded and 20 missing, with the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jack Churchill, being captured by the Germans." is sourced to his work?
  • Post-war, Rendulic was used extensively by the US Army as a source for many operational studies of the European war, and nothing that is being used from this book is self-serving or romantic in any way. The bit in that sentence drawn from Rendulic is the capture of Jack Churchill, the rest of the sentence is sourced from Pribilović. I've moved the citations closer. There are several possible translations of Gekämpft, Gesiegt, Geschlagen, but I've changed it to "Fought, Won, Defeated". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any information about K. Vowinckel, publishers of Schraml's work, or indeed about Schraml himself. As a work published relatively recently after the war, I might be suspicious that he too would tend towards a romantic view, but he's only cited twice, for information that does not appear to me to be controversial.
  • Schraml mostly sticks to bare facts and is unromantic, and provides only the German side of operations. I have only used such sources for uncontroversial information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyre has also published a book based on his article. I had a look at both and didn't think the level of detail of much of the information was necessary for the article. The rest is already covered by other sources. I could put them both in a Further reading section? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add them to a Further reading section myself, but your choice. Factotem (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Factotem. See if I've addressed everything to your satisfaction. Just a query about the final point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while I would ideally like to see a scan from someone outside the MilHist space before we promote, I see no reason to prevent another nom at this point. There are a lot of noms in the list though, so I'd encourage everyone to have a go at more reviews, even if outside their comfort zone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consistently review three times as many articles as I nominate, although admittedly they are mostly in the Milhist space. Across more than eight years I've had 52 FAs and have reviewed 152 articles. Surely prolific reviewers can be cut some more slack? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dispensation to nominate another article wasn't contingent on your reviewing more articles than normal, just an encouragement to do so given the number of opens ones at the moment -- the suggestion was also, as I said, for everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very interesting. A few comments.
  • In the first lede paragraph, you refer to "German ... and allied forces" and then, later, "and co-located Allied military missions". Is there any way of avoiding the first "allied"? I don't think the risk of confusion is that great, still a different word might be better.
  • I'm not as familiar with WWII in the Balkans as perhaps I should be so the first paragraph comes to me a little unclear how it fits into the big picture of the war.
  • The sourcing scheme seems a bit hard to understand in the "Ground forces" section.
  • To me. Do you feel it's clear to the reader?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who resisted fanatically" how so more than any other resistance?
  • Well, soldiers can resist weakly or strongly, and in some cases fanatically. In this case, the defenders were serious hard-core communists who knew they would get no quarter from the Germans. It is how their resistance is described by Eyre, and it is the only use of "fanatically" in his paper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the strikes by the Balkan Air Force in the first paragraph of "Aftermath" seem a bit duplicative of the first paragraph of "25 May". I wonder why you refer to it as "newly-formed" in the second reference to it.
  • "Tito, his principal headquarters staff and the allied military personnel escaped, despite their presence in Drvar at the time of the airborne assault." Should allied be capped?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Wehwalt, always nice to have a non-Milhist editor with many FAs under their belt look over one of my noms. Just a couple of queries above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All looks good from my outside perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Rösselsprung_(1944)/archive1&oldid=955546358"