Talk:2nd Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * in the lead, slight repetition (during...during in the same sentence) "...during the German-led Axis invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941 during World War II." -->Perhaps this would work, "...that opposed the German-led Axis invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941 during World War II"
 * in the lead, "defence of the Yugoslav-Hungarian border" (suggest adding an endash between the two elements, e.g. Yugoslav and Hungarian
 * in the lead, link Belgrade on first mention
 * in the lead, "On 14–15 April, tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers had been captured..." --> "By 14–15 April, tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers had been captured" or "On 14–15 April, tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers wer captured"
 * in the Composition section, is the 76th Cavalry Regiment notable enough to be linked like the divisions?
 * Not likely, it doesn't even figure in the descriptions of the invasion, and probably didn't fully mobilise before it disintegrated.
 * That seems fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * endash: "Yugoslav-Hungarian border west of Slatina"
 * endash: "Yugoslav-Romanian border into the Yugoslav Banat"
 * "but Croat reservists began to desert their units" --> would it be possible to say why here?
 * I think that this quote should be attributed: 2nd Army being described as having "no combat importance at all" (described by whom?)
 * in the Notes section,is there a citation/footnote that could be added for Note a?
 * in the References, should Geografski institut JNA be listed before Shores?
 * the article talks about the unit solely in terms of its existence in World War II, did it exist before this or after?
 * Short answer is no, it only existed after mobilisation, and the Royal Army ceased to exist when they surrendered.
 * No worries, thanks for clearing that up. If you are planning to take this to A-class, I think it might be a good idea to clarify this point somewhere in the article. For instance, maybe a short clause or sentence at the start of the the Composition or Deployment sections, such as: "Existing only after the Royal Army's mobilisation in ?? 1941, the 2nd Army was commanded by..." or "Existing only after the Royal Army's mobilisation in ?? 1941, the 2nd Army was part of the 2nd Army Group...". Additionally, the lead could be tweaked slightly to clarify this, for example: "Established after mobilisation in ? 1941, it consisted of three infantry divisions and one horsed cavalry regiment." (suggestion only, of course). AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will start addressing these points shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All done. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will try to get back to the review to finalise it tonight or tomorrow. Sorry, I've been very busy with work. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good, Peacemaker. Great work as usual. If only I could convince you to work on some of these (plenty of divisions/brigades/battalions etc that need attention)! Anyway, have a great weekend and thanks for your contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I might have a crack at getting 10th Bn to FA before ANZAC Day next year. We'll see. Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * With the changes listed above, I believe that this article meets the GA criteria. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)