Talk:Battle of Osijek/GA1

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

AGF on the references etc. as you know what you're doing :) Generally reading through it seems a good treatment of the subject, so I'm mostly looking and prose and presentation issues.

That's about it for now. I've made a few copyedits, please see these are OK :) --Errant (chat!) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The attacks were supported by limited JNA armour and infantry attacks aimed at enveloping the city and airstrikes by the Yugoslav Air Force; two attacks in a row. Also, the and airstrikes... - as currently constructed the sentence implies the attacks were supposed to be enveloping the airstrikes too, which I suspect is not what you mean :) maybe some missing commas?
 * Reworded, please review.
 * It is estimated; by whom?
 * Clarified.
 * After the JNA captured Vukovar; dates?
 * Added at both instances.
 * for the first time on 3 July; new section, so I'd suggest using the year here too
 * Added.
 * constantly maintained; just maintained
 * Revised as suggested.
 * was reportedly commanded in practice; according to whom?
 * Clarified.
 * Review your use of -ly adverbs; these words tend to be imprecise and often redundant. Prose can almost always be improved by their replacement or removal. (e.g. the word only is redundant in most cases)
 * Copyedited prose, removing a few of those. Please review.
 * The JNA first attacked Osijek by mortar fire on 31 July 1991; first attacked the city, or first attacked it by mortar? Sentence implies the latter
 * Actually it was the first mortar attack recorded. Small arms fire became quite usual in the preceding two months in the areas surrounding the city. I suspect it would be quite a challenge to establish when exactly did those occur first.
 * supported by JNA garrison; garrisons plural?
 * Revised.
 * and the JNA garrison was besieged by Croatian forces in mid-September; make this a new sentence, it is unrelated to the initial sentence fragment.
 * Revised as suggested.
 * and largely ceased in June; by june? Also, largely is imprecise, can you be more specific as it strikes me the end of the bombardment is a pretty key fact.
 * Removed "largely". The bombardment did cease by June as a consequence of UNPROFOR deploying in the area. Nonetheless the city was attacked by artillery several times after the UN peacekeepers deployed, but those events have little to do with the 1991-92 attacks.
 * The intensity of the bombardment was reported; confusing context as you've moved from discussing the end of the bombardment to discussing its height. Consider making this a new paragraph and starting with something like During it's height, the intensity of the...
 * Revised.
 *  the its 12th Corps; missing words?
 * Revised.
 * supported by the Serb Volunteer Guard paramilitaries,[32] trained by the Serbian Ministry of Interior; lots of commas here, creating lots of fragments. I don't think it means what you intend it to mean (i.e. that the SMI trained the paramitaries - it reads like they trained the 12th corps). A parenthesis may address this.
 * Revised, please have another look at this.
 * and that was later confirmed; maybe which was
 * Revised as suggested.
 *  at the time; redundant, recommend removing
 * Removed.
 * After JNA captured Vukovar,; date needed.
 * Added.
 * The third paragraph of Bombardment seems out of sync. Are these manouveres merely background, i.e. are they not considered part of the battle? If not I suggest it might be worth rejigging things to have a chronological account.
 * Right, I moved it down a bit, since the 4 Dec info contained there may be grouped with the final ground assaults in early December. Is that any better?
 * Broken up para and moved information elsewhere to maintain chronological order.
 * as the population took refuge; two populations in one sentence. Maybe people?
 * Revised as suggested.
 *  at one point during the bombardment; is it possible to be more specific here?
 * Unfortunately no. I reworded this a bit to reflect the sources better when they claim that the population of the city dropped to 10,000 while the bombardment was the most intense (and infantry attack was perceived as imminent).
 * The population remaining in Osijek normally slept in bomb shelters -> Those remaining in Osijek normally slept in bomb shelters
 * Revised as suggested.
 * were killed in Osijek; odd tense. perhaps simple had been killed by the bombardment
 * Revised as suggested.
 * In fact a number of weres here need to become had been.
 * Copyedited the section a bit. Please review.
 *  sustained by the city; sustained twice. Maybe reword?
 * Revised.


 * Thank you for taking time and effort to review this article. I trust I have addressed most of the issues you raised, I'll review the entire article some more to catch any redundant -lys and were/had beens.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further copyedits are now in - please review changes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, congrats on your 50th GA :) --Errant (chat!) 14:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. The GA's actually the 55th (5 became A-class articles in the meantime). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)