Talk:Operation Storm/GA1

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the article is acceptable but after a detailed review i was not satisfied with the "Assessment of battle" section. I felt that this section requierd more references for the claims it was making and possibly contained original research.
 * The "assessment" section (paragraphs 2 and 3) is largely based on the assessment presented in the Balkan Battlegrounds reference. The book offers a 3-page assessment of the battle (current ref number 126), with an exception of the remark made by Col Leslie, which is separately referenced. As is now, every sentence in the two paragraph up to the point marked with the reference 126 is sourced in the Balkan Battlegrounds chapter titled Evaluation of "Oluja" on pages 374-376. I selected this particular reference for the purpose because I felt it to be competent and objective enough - as it appeared satisfactory for Battle of Vukovar FAC. Do you suggest additional references are needed to back up this one?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or do you feel that the figures in the first paragraph of the section are not sufficiently referenced?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs now carry references to specific (individual) pages.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For these reasons i am putting this article's nomination on hold until improvements are made.Retrolord (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On a more basic level I want to mention that the lead does not indicate the timeframe the conflict took place during. I had to look at the infobox to figure out it happened in 1995. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, that is a fairly rudimentary omission. I have added the year to the dates specified in the first paragraph of the lead now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking time to review the article. I will address your concerns right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)