The article was removed by Dana boomer 00:36, 7 March 2011 [1].
Third Battle of Kharkov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because this article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Per WP:FACR a FA must be:
1.
3. Media. No Problems with licensing, but the lack of any map or maps of the battle is making it difficult to follow.
Issues were raised on January 1, on both the article and the Military History talk pages. The editors who replied seem to agree that there are problems. D2306 ( talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
4. errors:
in short: all the numbers in this sentence seem arbitrary and wrong. Can someone check them and correct them? If not I will remove the sentence in question. I also removed already the sentence: "which were earmarked for the offensive operations towards the Don River" because the Don at this time was already hundreds of kilometers to the back of the Soviet front!! noclador ( talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks. Could we get some comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer ( talk) 14:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - The article seems to only have the errors noted above as remaining issues to be fixed. Someone(s) with sources for that data needs to check and make correction. I believe some more time, like 3-4 weeks should be allowed for that to happen. - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by Dana boomer 00:36, 7 March 2011 [1].
Third Battle of Kharkov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because this article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Per WP:FACR a FA must be:
1.
3. Media. No Problems with licensing, but the lack of any map or maps of the battle is making it difficult to follow.
Issues were raised on January 1, on both the article and the Military History talk pages. The editors who replied seem to agree that there are problems. D2306 ( talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
4. errors:
in short: all the numbers in this sentence seem arbitrary and wrong. Can someone check them and correct them? If not I will remove the sentence in question. I also removed already the sentence: "which were earmarked for the offensive operations towards the Don River" because the Don at this time was already hundreds of kilometers to the back of the Soviet front!! noclador ( talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks. Could we get some comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer ( talk) 14:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - The article seems to only have the errors noted above as remaining issues to be fixed. Someone(s) with sources for that data needs to check and make correction. I believe some more time, like 3-4 weeks should be allowed for that to happen. - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply