Talk:Erdut killings/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 22 April 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):
 * Is "Erdut massacre" really the most common name for this subject? It just strikes me as odd that it is called a "massacre" (singular) when in fact it was a series of killings over the course of almost seven months.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes index.hr a reliable source? According to our article on it, it's a tabloid known for yellow journalism.
 * 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 solid article. I have one question on the title of the article and one on the reliability of a reference, so I am placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very solid article. I have one question on the title of the article and one on the reliability of a reference, so I am placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall a very solid article. I have one question on the title of the article and one on the reliability of a reference, so I am placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Regarding index.hr, I wouldn't really trust wiki on characterisation of the news outlet in this case. The characterisation of a tabloid hangs on a single reference to a Nacional magazine article where the word "tabloid" is used in the article title to call index.hr the first "Croatian daily tabloid" and then twice more in the rest of the article to say that all media are tabloids in part and that even serous TV News Programmes are "tabloids" in view of the author. Personally, I view the article on index.hr to be skewed at best and possibly POV-pushing for distorting what's reported by the offered source. Index.hr and its management, and owner Matija Babić, are taken quite seriously in terms of international news events and the EU institutions (for example see here, and here, and here).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards the article title, not sure myself. Far from being bent on one over the other, the same issue of singular implied by the current title vs. an extended period of time led me to wonder whether "Erdut killings" or something along those lines (plural) would be better suited. Not being sure, I left the title as it was. Suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do the sources call it? Is there a difference in English versus other language sources? Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both English-language and local sources generally refer to the event(s) in descriptive terms either as killings, crime(s) or war crime(s) etc. There is no substantial difference between terms applied by, say Croatian sources and those abroad. I suspect the extended timeline has something to do with the vague/descriptive terms used to refer to the event(s), but that may be just my impression.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a post at WT:MILHIST would get some good opinions? I would say "Erdut war crimes" or "Erdut killings" would probably be most appropriate, as "massacre" (to me) represents a single event. However, I could be wrong on that, and I could be accidentally advising you to go against some aspect of MOS. Dana boomer (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked MILMOS (thanks for the reminder): I don't think that's really necessary, and the article should be renamed to Erdut killings because WP:MILMOS specifically urges caution in use of the word "massacre" in article title instructing editors to follow what's actually used in WP:RS. Since the RS don't explicitly name the event(s) as a "massacre" and they often refer to those as crimes/killings I'd opt go for Erdut killings. There's no doubt that killing of civilians is a crime, but "killings" appears to be more neutral and it is definitely an accurate description of what happened, supported by RS. The article itself plainly indicates those constitute war crimes and the fact need not be repeated in the article. If you are alright with this, I could move the article accordingly, however I'm hesitant to move it while this GAR is open - just in case it messes up link with the GAR. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Killings" works for me. I'll go ahead and pass the GAN, and then you can go ahead and move the article! Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved and copyedited accordingly. Thanks for the review. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)