Talk:Lovas killings/GA1

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Given this has been here over a month and you are such a prolific GAN reviewer, I'll overcome my usual reticence to review 1990's Yugoslav wars articles. Will get started shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I copyedited the lead as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All standard checks are green. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regading the number of deaths - The sources I managed to find indicate a total of 70: 22 during the initial assault, 23 more between then and the minefield deaths, 1 on the way to the minefield and 21 in the minefield itself, plus 3 more after that. That's 22+23+1+21+3=70. Regarding the number of exhumed bodies, out of 68 exhumed from the mass grave, 2 were not from Lovas (unfortunately, sources such as this one do not indicate where exactly they were from). A possible "lead" is given in this source (used in the article) which says that out of 9 sets of remains exhumed in Jelaš Forest, only 5 have been identified and 3 out of those were military and that the graves contained remains of residents of Lovas and Tovarnik (a nearby village). I found no similar details on the ten individual graves (regarding possible identification o the bodies buried there), but it appears that at least two out o three burial sites were used to bury not only those killed in Lovas but also some civilians and military killed elsewhere. Now, there appears to be no source directly offering such an analysis, so perhaps it would the best to rephrase the relevant bit and say that the victims were among those buried at these three sites. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to convey this message in the aftermath section - Could you please take a look and see if I managed or fumbled that? I also edited the article to address your concerns raised in the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Missed that one, thanks for pointing that out - should be reodered chronologically now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done, good article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)