Talk:Operation Southeast Croatia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination within a couple of days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I plan to post a blank GAR checklist first and proceed with specific questions below, filling out the checklist gradually.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead section
 * A section in the lead says that "many [Chetniks] withdrew across the Drina river into the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to avoid being engaged." The article prose itself does mention a withdrawal of Chetniks but it does not specify that some withdrew across Drina (i.e. to Serbia). Since the lead section should provide a summary of the information contained in the article, the main prose body should contain this piece of information too. --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, is there a way to quantify "some" (in the article prose) or are the sources too vague on this? --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * fixed first point, the text isn't clear about the second one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Background
 * The sentence "They [Chetniks] also shared control of the towns of Rogatica, Olovo and Han Pijesak with the Partisans." is potentially very confusing. Could you please clarify if the Chetniks and Partisans controlled different parts of each of those cities, or if they controlled various parts of the general area of the cities. More importantly, did the shared control come about as a consequence of combat (causing each of them to hold onto a different part of a given city) or did they have an arrangement to do so? Were they allied at the time or in the area (in October 1942 they were definitely hostile to each other - cf. Operation Alfa)? Even though the subsequent parts of the article provide an explanation of subsequent hostility, it would be helpful to have an indication of the relation of the two specifically because of the hostilities in place during most of the war.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Background section is in fact quite contrasted to the rest of the article - it is very terse, while the remainder is quite informative. It comes off as if written assuming readers to be fully aware of situation in the area in 1942, who Chetniks and Partisans were and who did they deny the large portion of eastern Bosnia to. While brevity has its virtues, it would probably be useful to quite a number of readers to have a two or three sentence paragraph preceding the existing one, explaining that the Axis invaded Yugoslavia, partitioned it into occupation zones and established puppet states and that insurgency/insurgencies sprang up. I know this might sound as a nitpicking request, but those readers navigating to the article from an article not providing sufficient context will definitely benefit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was a bit light on. I've beefed it up somewhat, still need to tidy up the citations, but let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is largely fine, except for one bit: "The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population, against which many Serbs began to resist. The resistance initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions..." sentence is somewhat misleading for two reasons. It leaves an impression that 1) the resistance comprised Serbs only (I assume that in terms of Chetniks it generally did, but this was definitely not so in case of Partisans) and that 2) the resistance was focused on the racial/religious persecution of the NDH (implying that the resistance movements would be fine with the NDH were there no such persecution, which is quite improbable). I am aware that 1) is a slippery slope towards lengthy elaboration of who was the first to start uprising, which nation was the most numerous in the Partisan movement and who led the most effective armed resistance - and all that is entirely unnecessary in this article, as Yugoslav Partisans article is there to provide full coverage, so I urge a more general formulation there in order to maintain focus of the article. The problem nr. 2) is a direct consequence of 1). Therefore i propose that the following:


 * The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population, against which many Serbs began to resist. The resistance initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions,...


 * be changed to something along the lines of:


 * The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population. Armed resistance to the occupation and the NDH initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions,...


 * Of course, this is just a suggestion, but I trust the latter structure is less problematic. Conceivably, Resistance during World War II could e linked from the "armed resistance" instead from "See Also" section.

Planning
 * In "The German force was assisted by NDH units including 7 infantry battalions and nine artillery batteries." I infer that the NDH units were the Croatian Home Guard. If so, I suppose it would be informative to specify that instead of the general term this early in the article. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Added to lead as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the "Vienna Line" formal/informal name of the demarcation line between the occupation zones in the NDH or a line established for the purposes of the Operation Southeast Croatia? --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * now clarified in the Background section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The pioneers you refer to in the section - should they wikilink to Pioneer (military), Assault pioneer, Combat engineer or something entirely different? --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * assault pioneers, fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Southeast Croatia
 * The first sentence of the second paragraph reads "The insurgents in the area of operations destroyed villages...". Could you clarify who the "insurgents" refers to? I assume it is refers to the Partisans only, but I'm not entirely sure if it is meant to refer to both Partisans and Chetniks. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not clear in the text. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could some explanation of the "tight timeframe" be provided? Was the operation limited in time due to available provisions, orders or something else? --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have removed the redundant timeframe phrase, overly ambitious objectives covers it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the first instance of "Supreme Staff" could be accompanied by a modifier to make sure that the staff and the 1st Proletarian Brigade are identified as Partisan formations more clearly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Ozren
 * I assume that Operation Ozren is a part of this particular article as an extension of the Operation Southeast Croatia employing the same divisions deployed in the Operation Southeast Croatia or elements thereof. Would it be wise to add a sentence saying so to avoid confusing casual readers. From the infobox placed in the section and another one at the top of the article, I see a change of the commanding officer, even though the German units were largely the same. Was Hoffman relieved of duty or was there another reason for the change? --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the issue was around swapping of commanders and the 342nd being slated to return to Russia I think. I'll check and address. No, not clear why from the text. I've made the change suggested though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally, the article is properly referenced, unbiased, and images/maps used are properly licensed, with suitable captions. No edit-wars appear to be in progress in the article. All major issues are covered and the coverage is focused.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are few MoS compliance issues:
 * En dashes are required in number ranges. There's at least one range requiring this type of change (infobox). En dash should also be used in compounds like "Chetnik-Partisan" where it may be replaced by to, versus, and, or between. (see: MOS:ENDASH) --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted some of them - hyphens are still used to denote compounding. A convert template was fixed - I suspect that there might have been a stray en dash there too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * MoS does not require repetition of wikilinks in the main prose if they're already used in the lead, but it might be helpful for readers to reiterate them at their first occurrence after the lead. This, of course is not an obstacle to GA, just a suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally try to do that, I'll go through and check.
 * Everything is fine as it is in this regard.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The prose a number of scare quotes: "winter quarters", "Vienna Line", defined all the following groups as "hostile";, "Igman March" - i.e. implying an alternative, non-obvious, meaning of the words or phrases. Please reconsider which of those are really justified. I trust these four are fairly straightforward, but I'm not sure about "wholly collapsed".--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left "Vienna Line" and "Igman March" and removed the others. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Igman March does not need quotes either - it means exactly what it says it is, right? - march across [Mount] Igman?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. Removed it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, come to think of it, it was redundant really.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Avoid redirecting piped links, such as in the case of 342nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), and use directly piped ones instead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced 342nd Infantry Division (Germany) with 342nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), but haven't used the straight wikilink so as not to have the disambiguator in the text. Is that acceptable? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's what I meant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the following sentence: "On 9 January 1942, the 718th Infantry Division had issued orders to both its regiments which defined all the following groups as "hostile"; all non-residents and residents that had been absent from their localities until recently; all identifiable Chetniks or communists with or without weapons or ammunition; and anyone concealing, supplying or providing information to those groups.", the first semicolon should be replaced with a colon (per MoS). The remaining ones may remain semicolons (since an item contains a comma) or be replaced with commas.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bolding "Operation Ozren" in the eponymous section should not be there per MoS, as boldface is reserved for the first instance of the article title in lead section (and then only once) and possible alternative names of the subject.
 * Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Per above, I'm not sure whether bolding of the "Second Enemy Offensive" in the lead section is justified per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Is it a synonym for the Operation Southeast Croatia or is the operation a part of the Second Enemy Offensive? If the latter is the case, it should be in plain font (and I'd opt for that solution). Of course, inclusion of the Operation Ozren may warrant such a bolding, but I'll leave that for your judgement. I'll accept either solution, as long as the Operation Ozren is a part of this article and not split off into a new one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion of this on talk, but I am of the view that it should not be bolded. It is not a synonym for Op Southeast Croatia, as Op Ozren is also part of the "Second Enemy Offensive". I've unbolded it for now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In "Operation Ozren", Ozren should not be italicized. Italic face is used to add emphasis and for purposes defined by WP:ITALIC. Moreover application of the italic face in Ozren is inconsistent with normal face used for Operation Southeast Croatia. Ditto for Operation Trio.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As a more general remark on the operation names, WP:MILMOS discourages use of operational codenames as article titles and prefers descriptive geographic terms if no prominent, widely-used common name exists. This is not relevant for the GA review, but I suspect it may become an issue if you decide to go to FAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length regarding all these operations, and a decision was made to go with the German operation names as the better of two evils. The alternatives are "Nth Enemy Offensive" which are really just a "heroic" Yugoslav communist propaganda construct aimed at building the legend of Tito and the Partisans. In comparison, the German operation names are relatively neutral. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, that's irrelevant for the GAR - I just thought to point out that someone might request a change of the title to Battle of Eastern Bosnia or something like that. I, for one, certainly won't do that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Round brackets enveloping the convert template in "... facing extreme temperatures (approaching −30 °C (−22 °F))." are not necessary and produce a duplicate bracket at the end of the sentence.
 * Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this concludes the first run. The article is very close to GA, with relatively few sticking points remaining to be addressed. I'll place the nomination on hold for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First run comments addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the hyphens, I still haven't mastered that bit of the MOS... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I trust all GA criteria are met now, so I'm passing the nomination. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks very much for the review (and the tweaking...). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)