Talk:Vance plan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I have tried to address your concerns, but would like to have some feedback on the following:
 * Regarding the copyedit, I have no qualms, except that the JNA in Croatian is "Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija" and in Serbian it is "Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija". I have no clue which is correct in SC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a look in Google Books, and the Serbian version seems to have been around for much longer in academic publications in English, and the article on sc WP is at that name. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I clarified which areas were meant in "the UN would restore the area". In the same sentence: there's little I can add (and reference) as to why Croatians believed UN force would restore their control over the areas lost to the RSK-control. I seem to remember that was a prevalent (mis)conception, and the source available on the matter seems to support the claim that they believed so. Throughout the war people who "spoke" legalese interpreted various UNSC resolutions to authorities on either side of the frontline variously. Maybe that was one such interpretation, maybe wishful thinking. I simply cannot reference any such explanation. Hope the additional explanation in the article works.
 * That's fine, these things aren't always cut and dried. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed the UNSC resolution establishing UNPROFOR makes zero references to ch 6 or 7. Instead it refers to ch 8 which contains some (vague to me) description what happens if someone confronts the UN force. No other provision on the rules of engagement seem to be included in the UNSC resolution. Added some explaination to the text.
 * Good enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved the UNPROFOR deployments map next to the table defining UNPAs, that seemed more natural, and moved general location map to the lead instead. Hope that's fine.
 * THat's fine, it's a personal preference thing, and it is within guidelines. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While there is information (JNA 9th Corps report) that the parties in Sarajevo were briefed on details of the Vance plan (pp.39-41), and that it is pivotal (along with the Geneva Accord) to the plan (as explicitly stated in the relevant UNSC resolution) I'm concerned such use of box in the lead (please note that a box is already used in the appropriate section) would give it undue weight relative to the Geneva Accords which also appears to be central to the plan (Armatta p.196). If there was a way to include both Geneva and Sarajevo documents in the lead (short of having two boxes, which seems clumsy) I'd be more than happy to move the box(es) there. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I can live with that, there really isn't an infobox that is flexible enough to do the job. Good job, listing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)