Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/27th Infantry Division Savska/archive1

27th Infantry Division Savska

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division that began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force during the April 1941 invasion of that country. Fifth column elements even took over a city before the division completely disintegrated in the face of an overwhelming German armoured assault. This article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2015–2016, and has been further improved thanks via the FAC of its higher formation, 4th Army. It forms part of a Good Topic on the 1st Army Group that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

 * No alt text for the second map.
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No duplinks.
 * No broken links.

Lead

 * "was a very large and unwieldy formation" Optional: remove "very".
 * Generally I agree with this, but it was large by a wide margin over its equivalent British formation, so I'm going to stick with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "and largely manned by Croat troops" "manned by" seems odd. 'made up of'?
 * Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "the division also lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition" Could this be a separate sentence?
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "a series of preliminary operations against the Yugoslav frontiers". Being picky, they weren't "against" the frontiers. 'along'?
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "A planned counterattack delayed the Germans for a day" "A planned counterattack" implies that it never happened. If the Germans were delayed by it, then I assume it did. Suggest deleting "planned". Reading the rest of the article I see that the planned attack on the 7th never happened. That of the 8th seems to have lacked any actual attack. The German delay mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to crop up in the article.
 * "the German panzers with overwhelming air support brushed aside" Should "with overwhelming air" be within commas?
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "(99 mi)". Optional: spurious accuracy. Suggest sigfig=1.
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Operations
An excellent piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "was largely in its mobilisation centres or moving to concentration areas" Optional: 'to its concentration areas'.
 * "By the evening, German successes along the Hungarian border made it clear to the Germans that the Yugoslavs would not be resisting stubbornly at the frontier." This reads a little oddly after the previous sentence. Perhaps ' German successes eleswhere along the Hungarian border'?
 * "to begin seizing bridges over the Drava right along the 4th Army front" I am honestly not sure what "right along" means in this context. Along the whole Army front?
 * "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators" Either "which" -> 'who' or "Germans" -> 'German forces'.
 * "The continuing mobilisation and concentration of the division and the whole of the 4th Army". Optional: 'and of the whole of the 4th Army'
 * "attached to the 1st Army Group which had survived an early morning raid on their airfield the previous day," Comma after "Group".
 * "the divisional cavalry battalion", "the divisional cavalry squadron". ?
 * "The majority of the 81st Cavalry Regiment, which were army-level troops, was on the road from Zagreb to Koprivnica" This reads a little clunkily to me. Maybe "which were army-level troops" to 'which was an army-level formation'?
 * "3.1 mi" Spurious accuracy?
 * "Of the other units involved in the counterattack, most were only at 25 percent of their full strength due to Ustaše-influenced desertions sparked by the rebellion within the 40th ID. Two battalions of the 36th Infantry Regiment deserted during the day." "involved in the counterattack" - I am left confused as to whether these units actually attacked. Or even if they came into any contact with the Germans.
 * "but was attacked by German tanks on the outskirts, captured and detained" Optional: "captured and detained" -> 'and captured'.
 * "(99 miles)" 1. Spurious accuracy? 2. Inconsistency between "mi" and "miles".
 * Thanks for the review, . You have picked up on quite a bit of unclear prose, greatly appreciated. The counterattack petered out, and was frankly pretty half-hearted except for the cavalry, so I've added that, and the fact that it held up the Germans just for the night of 8/9 April. I think I've got everything. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A pleasure to contribute towards the article. One small niggle remaining:
 * "When the attack on the bridgehead at Zákány was eventually launched, by the time the attack petered out only the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and …" Maybe remove the leading "When", or insert something before "by"?
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, that was a bit clunky. Fixed, . Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
I will have a look in this one this evening (CET). CPA-5 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No active year(s) in the infobox?
 * The wartime organisation of the VKJ was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–37 shouldn't it be 1936–1937 instead of 1936–37?
 * one of 100 mm (3.9 in) light howitzers, one of 65 mm (2.6 in) or 75 mm (3.0 in) mountain guns the "0" isn't necessary.
 * and two of 75 mm (3.0 in) or 80 mm (3.1 in) field guns. the "0" isn't necessary.
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians not uses north-western or north western instead of "northwestern"?
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians uses percent or per cent? Because the article uses both per cents.
 * Thanks for taking a look, . I have addressed all your points. In response to your questions, I think usage varies in Australia, I'm sure the government style guide decrees one or the other, but as long as it is consistent in the article, I think it is ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey PM, I couldn't find anything else so I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kaiser matias

 * Always enjoy reading your articles, and this one is no exception.
 * Though should note I'd move the link to U.S Army so it only links in "note a" and note "note d" and "note e." Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks as always, Kaiser. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Time to seek a source review I think, if you haven't already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review
Will do this weekend. You can reciprocate at the Aldrin article if you like. Or don't, it is fine; it will not affect the speed or veracity of my review.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would, except I have no idea about astronauts and have avoided reviewing them as a result, and looking at it, I'm not sure about the use of Aldrin's memoirs in a FA. Happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries; the source review ended up getting performed. The memoirs are a tricky bit, generally are acceptable in astronaut FACs for some reason (often are co-authored which helps probably). Anyways, to the review.


 * Formatting
 * I poked around and can find no issues. I checked a couple of ISBNs to verify the accuracy of the citation parameters, and found no errors.
 * I suppose Geografski institut JNA (1952) could use a language parameter.
 * Spotchecking
 * Did not find anything while checking worth noting

So should just be adding a language parameter then we should be good to go.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks very much for this review, Kees08! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All looks good to me.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

this looks good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)