Talk:Battle of the Miljevci Plateau/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead, "when the released prisoners of war informed the UNPROFOR." Need to say what the prisoners told UNPROFOR. Maybe "informed the UNPROFOR of the location of the corpses." or something similar?
 * Background, "the JNA stayed behind for seven to eight months." Why the vagueness about the timing?
 * Prelude, "claiming deteriorating battlefield conditions in general prevented the withdrawal." What sort of deteriorating conditions? Personnel? Weather?
 * Aftermath, " Two Croatian military police members were charged with Subotić's murder in 2011. As of 2013 the trial is ongoing." Why did it take almost 20 years for two men to be charged?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What is Veritas (as in ""Mučki napad" [Furtive Attack] (in Serbian). Veritas." in Other sources)? What makes it a reliable source?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice article, as usual. A few prose niggles and one reference question, all of which are fairly minor. I made a few copyedits - please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed meaning or that you just don't like :) Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice article, as usual. A few prose niggles and one reference question, all of which are fairly minor. I made a few copyedits - please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed meaning or that you just don't like :) Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall a very nice article, as usual. A few prose niggles and one reference question, all of which are fairly minor. I made a few copyedits - please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed meaning or that you just don't like :) Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have replaced the source you pointed out and tweaked wording noted above.

The vague "seven to eight months" is now replaced by "up to eight months in some areas" - because the withdrawal was not uniform. The UNPROFOR began to deploy three months after the ceasefire but the process was not quite rapid. Finally, Yugoslav army stayed behind in Dubrovnik area the longest (UNPROFOR was not scheduled to deploy there).

I made an attempt at clarifying the deteriorating battlefield conditions. The HV claimed deteriorating security, i.e. that they expected the RSK forces to attack at one or more locations.

Regarding the 20-year wait for a war crimes trial - a newspaper article from 2001 (used in the article as a source) indicates the prosecutors office claimed to be working on bringing up the charges back then too, but it is apparent that authorities were dragging their feet, presumably hoping the thing would go away. I assume this would be possible only if suspects were well connected, but none of this can be referenced in any way -- therefore I'd rather leave the reader to put the two and two together - if that's alright with you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the work on the article and the explanations. Everything looks good at this point, so I'm now passing the article to GA status. Very nice work, as usual. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)