Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:05, 28 October 2011.

Battle of Vukovar

 * Co-nominator(s): Joy, Prioryman (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy and I wish to co-nominate this article for featured article status. It has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the battle, which falls on 18 November 2011. The battle was a critically important event in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and will be the subject of commemorations in Croatia. It will also attract significant international media coverage, some of which has already begun to appear, in the run-up and on the day itself. I've set out to write this to featured standard from the outset and I'm pretty sure that it will meet many of the featured article criteria. It has already gone through an A-class review under the auspices of WP:MILHIST. Ideally, if we can complete this FAC in time, the article will be ready in time to mark the anniversary. Prioryman (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For reference: WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Vukovar. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that some useful reviewing was done at the A-class review, but the article has not passed an A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

- No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyscape review

- Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Source review
 * "Croatian president Franjo Tuđman (left) wanted an intact Croatia to gain independence from Yugoslavia, while Serbian president Slobodan Milošević (right) wanted to change Yugoslavia's internal borders to unite all Serbs in a single state under his control." - source? (Also, why is one direction italicized and the other is not?)
 * I think I've fixed both issues now, reducing the text to a wholly bland sentence that could not be contested. (Well, one could technically still contest it, but such an action would likely be considered a trigger for uw-balkans2 :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Authors for Britannica articles?
 * Added. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some newspaper articles are still missing page numbers
 * Added. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * FN 145: italicization
 * Assuming you mean Voice of America News, it doesn't seem to be italicised in common usage as far as I can see - similar to BBC News, I assume. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually I meant current FN 146 - Economist is generally italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * References to The Economist should now be consistent. I'm now looking for any more analogous discrepancies (non-italicized ref vs. cite news). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, do you have the source to "Vukovar police report terrorist arrests", Summary of World Broadcasts (BBC), 9 July 1991? The other SWB reference is attributed to a specific author, but that one isn't, so it may seem inconsistent. OTOH maybe I wrongly tagged SWB as something that should be italicized in the first place. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the source, thanks for highlighting that. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether shortened citations end in periods
 * Fixed (I only found one such example, that of Marshall).


 * Ranges, even in titles, should use endashes
 * Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of authors/editors appear to be lacking first names/initials
 * There are a few with initialised middle names but the only initialised first name I can find is R. Craig Nation, which seems to be how he prefers it - presumably like L. Ron Hubbard. Everyone else has a fully spelled out first name. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Matic? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it now. The first name was already in the reference but a typo was preventing it from showing. Now fixed. Prioryman (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes Lonely Planet a high-quality reliable source for the information you are citing to it?
 * I take your point - I've rewritten the para using alternative sources. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in what info is included for locations - for example, Cambridge vs Cambridge, UK
 * Added location info. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When citing something specific like a quote to an audio/video source, please include a time ref
 * I presume you're referring to the Martin Bell radio broadcast. I'm not sure why it's in that list, it doesn't seem to be used as a source in the article; I assume it was meant to be an external link so I've moved it there.
 * Below, J&A reported that we do use the Bell radio broadcast in two references, so I'm restoring it; it should now also get a time ref or be replaced completely. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I listened to and adjusted it now so that it has exact time refs. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations or publishers for newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added locations for all newspapers other than Virski list, as I don't know where that's published (hopefully one of our Croatian editors can advise). The only newspaper publisher info that I found was, again, for Virski list. I've taken that out for consistency. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Virski list is a local newspaper sponsored by the municipality of Vir; the publishing company is based in the same place. It's not a particularly reputable source, I guess they're just a random paper that reprinted the Ministry of Defence's statistics - they could probably be found elsewhere. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks (which were not done at ACR) of 3 source found concerns:
 * "Between August 1990 and April 1991, almost 200 bombing and mining incidents, as well as 89 attacks on Croatian police forces, were reported" is verbatim from the source cited
 * That's annoying. :-( I took it directly from another article. I've reworded it to fix this. Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But what article was this copied from? (The copyvio should be fixed there as well.) – Quadell (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Croatian War of Independence. Given the presence of this copyvio I would expect there to be more. I don't have time to scrub the article thoroughly but perhaps one of our Croatian editors could do it? I'll flag up the problem on the talk page. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (I had since propagated the same sentence to Log Revolution; both have now been fixed. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC))


 * Article: "On the night of 31 April 1991, Šešelj personally visited Vukovar"; source: "Seselj, however, had personally visited Vukovar the night of 31 March" - notice the date discrepancy
 * Yes, my mistake - corrected. Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "namely based on evidence collected while he was a prisoner of war in the Sremska Mitrovica camp in 1991" - the source mentions that Purda was in a detention camp, but does not explicitly connect that to the indictment
 * Agreed. Not my addition, and the sourcing problem is obvious, so I've removed that bit. Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed this bit, and instead continued this at Talk:Battle of Vukovar. In short, it's a trivial problem that will be fixed ASAP. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it's too much detail (per John's comments) - I've reduced it to a summary. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "In late October, an entire infantry battalion from Novi Sad in Serbia abandoned an attack on Vukovar's northern suburb of Borovo Naselje, threw away their weapons and went back to Serbia on foot across a nearby bridge" - the source says that the Novi Sad battalion and the group that crossed the bridge on foot were two different groups. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed this. Thank for spotting it. Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the article now? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Coolug
Comment - just had a quick skim, this article is long, 153k long. I know not all of that is the prose, but it's really really long. Could some bits be split off and shortened? Coolug (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought experiment: if this were divided into one and a half or two articles, where would you split it? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments under John's below about shortening the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - Well written and comprehensive, great article. Coolug (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Moved by SandyGeorgia to this section) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dank
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I just reviewed the article for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) *Status report: There are concerns about inaccurate page numbers in the citations, so it would be helpful if we could find a way to get a random two or three of the references into the hands of reviewers ... Is anyone near a library that has the books or that can get ILL book loans quickly? Also, there's a request for additional copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I learned a lot from User:John's copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was gracious of you and I appreciate the feedback. --John (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Tomobe03
Comment Support because all my concerns have been addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Definite article should not be used as the first word of section headings (e.g. The propaganda war) - per MOS:HEAD--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:HEAD doesn't say that, but you're right, it's customary. I've removed "The" from the one heading that started with it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite news/web templates specifying non-English language sources should specify language and trans_title parameters (e.g. HV-May2007)--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked about this once already - can a native English speaker confirm that this is indeed preferable? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Language definitely. Trans_title is not as essential, though good to have. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW that language parameter was fixed, and it should be good in general (I didn't notice omissions on my last scan). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox specifies "Croatian side" belligerents as Croatian National Guard (ZNG) with the ZNG logo, while the ZNG units were formally renamed to Croatian Army on 3 November 1991.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can just prepend a generic Republic of Croatia and add HV to the list? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not find a fault with that solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has now been done (thanks Joy).
 * Croatian forces subsection details formation of the 204th Vukovar Brigade, yet it does not mention designation of the 124th brigade which may be helpful for readers consulting some external sources which refer to that number. Admittedly this piece of information may better be presented in the 204th Vukovar Brigade article than here, but a passing mention may be handy.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll probably take me a while to examine that 8.5 MB PDF :) I'd appreciate it if you could help summarize the issue in any of the articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go in the 204th Vukovar Brigade article, and then possibly distill something terse and useful to a talk page for possible use.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After another look, this issue is quite complicated and serves no purpose here. It is best left to the brigade article only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did find something useful in it - the fact that the brigade was officially formed as the battle was already well under way, while the old text was phrased in a somewhat misleading manner previously and it's good that it's fixed now. Further details are probably best left for the brigade article itself. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (...which I also amended in the meantime. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC))
 * "The borders and ownership of the region around Vukovar changed many times during the 19th and 20th centuries." - suggests (IMO) that the area of Vukovar changed hands between Croatia and other countries every couple of decades or so during the said period, when the area was a part of Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Slavonia/Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia until 1918, Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Sava Banovina/Banovina of Croatia (1918-1941) and SFR Yugoslavia/SR Croatia (1945-1991) before independence of Croatia. The borders did in fact change, but not in the immediate area of the city.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That really depends on the definition of the phrase "the region around Vukovar"... I guess we could try to specify that, but that won't help John's complaint. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what's the formulation is problematic to condense and remain (reasonably) accurate. I wouldn't expand much on that, let me think about it a bit, maybe there's a better wording yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much detail; I've taken the simpler route and left it out. It would be useful material in other articles, though. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Vukovar itself did not change hands between Croatia and Serbia in the said period, the original sentence does not really serve any purpose in the article except possibly confusing reader to conclude otherwise, that's probably the best in this case. Some other article exploring borders in the area or a similar subject might expand on it and benefit though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In "When the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was formed in 1945..." there is no need for the SFRY abbreviation since it is not used anywhere else in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yugoslav People's Army is consistently abbreviated to JNA except in the body text (besides the lead), where there are two mentions by the full name. There's also an additional mention of the full name in the infobox (which is fine) and one in a caption, which may be shortened as in the body text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've addressed both issues. Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If UN force in "A UN peacekeeping force provided security during the transition period between 1996 and 1998." is UNTAES the sentence should probably go something like "The UNTAES provided security..." as the same paragraph establishes that there's UNTAES in the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessarily implicit from the name "transitional authority" that it's also a peacekeeping force; but a trivial adjustment I just made should make things clear. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

John
Oppose at present as it seems over-written and too long. --John (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought experiment: if this were divided into one and a half or two articles, where would you split it? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is the best thought experiment; from my initial reading it seems more like a case of copyediting for clarity and concision. Leave it with me and I will think about it. --John (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For an example of a long FA article, please see Manhattan Project. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a nice article all right. I keep seeing too many words, too much background. I also see references from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Is that the best sourcing we can get? I propose greatly pruning the background stuff, though it is all interesting, and focusing more on the subject, along with a general copyedit for style. At the moment I am still not seeing it as an FA. Sorry. --John (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a go at pruning it. One thing though, is the page size script broken? It's not working for me any more. Prioryman (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So exactly which part of the background stuff can be pruned without losing context for the battle? The more general information about the war, or the more specific information about the situation in Vukovar? Note that we already have a large article on the Croatian War of Independence. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About the Britannica references: they are just used for some basic background detail and the author, John B. Allcock, is a subject-matter expert (he is head of the Research Unit in South East European Studies at the University of Bradford and has a lengthy publication history on Yugoslavia. Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I'm currently in the course of trimming the article. So far I've been able to reduce it by 1,867 words (a reduction of about 13%) to 12,256 words and 138 kB of Wiki text. This is already substantially shorter than Manhattan Project, mentioned above (15,233 words and 145 kB of Wiki text). I should be able to make further reductions later today. This will have the effect of breaking some of the page references temporarily so please bear with me. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now reduced the article by 2,404 words to a total of 11,719 words - a reduction of 17% in the word count. The amount of wiki text has been reduced by from 151 kB to 131 kB, and the readable prose size has gone down from 86 kB to 72 kB. This is slightly less than Augustus, which according to Featured articles/By length is the 100th longest featured article. Hopefully this will resolve the concerns about length. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It was improved by the trim, thank you. I took a pretty serious further hack at it, mainly trying to improve the style. Issues I tried to address included:


 * Active over passive voice; one example of many would be: "Ceasefires were violated by both sides, often within hours." amended to: "Both sides violated ceasefires, often within hours." The latter is shorter, carries the same meaning and is easier to read. More throw-weight per kg, so to speak.


 * Trimming out extra words without (I hope) changing the meaning.


 * "Finally" and "simply" should almost never occur in Wikipedia's voice, I believe, as nothing is final and very few things are simple.


 * Be careful about the difference between and and but as conjunctions, and ensure these are used with logical coherence. Compare

John likes pizza and Bob likes pasta
 * vs.

John likes pizza but Bob likes pasta.


 * See my user essay about one manifestation of this stylistic issue, if you're interested.


 * We don't use seasons to denote time unless it's germane to the context, as they are relative to where on the planet you are.


 * We should never employ journalistic flourishes like suffered a grim fate.

After the convoy set off on 12 October the JNA routed it around the battlefield for two days. lay mines, bring in reinforcements and consolidate JNA control of the road out of Vukovar.
 * One important practical question; we had


 * which looked garbled so I rewrote it as

After the convoy set off the JNA used the two days it took to lay mines, bring in reinforcements and consolidate JNA control of the road out of Vukovar.


 * Is this still true to the Ramet source, which I do not have for checking?


 * It's a beautiful and well-referenced article about a difficult subject; well done. I still want 24 hours to think some more before I support but I feel it's almost there. --John (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Finalized --John (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits - the changes are mostly fine. I've fixed a couple of factual errors that crept in - it wasn't just the JNA that was responsible (or even primarily responsible) for looting, and the Serb claims about the bodies in the hospital grounds were made after the battle, not during it (as the hospital wasn't captured until the fall of the town). I've also restored "Vukovar - Final Cut" as it's notable (it won a significant film award). Regarding the convoy, I'm afraid your version missed the key point that it took two days because the JNA held it up while they were using it as cover - I've reworded this bit to make it clearer. Prioryman (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing up the issue I identified. I am fine for the movie to be re-included as there is now a reference for its notability, which was lacking before. --John (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove links to the ICTY Mrksic verdict in this edit? It looks like they just needed to be fixed to point to a working anchor and AWB instead removed them completely? Also, this edit wrongly contracted two references into a broken state. It's good that duplication of paragraphs was fixed, but please don't break stuff :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I cleaned both of these up TTBOMK. The former anchor was functional, but then I noticed their style was somewhat inconsistent with the other references that include page numbers. Please verify it's all right now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question and for picking up the mistake. Here's what seems to have happened: here was Prioryman's inadvertent duplication of the material, here is me using AWB to reduce overlinking (and I accept my edit summary could have been more descriptive) but noticing the duplication, and here I removed the duplication. If I had had more time I would have fixed the mess this made of the reference formatting, but I got distracted by something in real life (yes, I have one) and didn't get back until you had already fixed it. Thank you for doing so. If I had made my two edits in the opposite order it would have worked better. I still find it hard to believe that I didn't spot the duplicated paragraphs during my copyedit last night, and that nobody else did either. Oh well, it all worked out. I am sorry if you perceived my attempts to improve the article as "breaking stuff" as this was not my intention. --John (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And incidentally I still weakly oppose on the basis that it could use a final pass from a copy-editor and per Nikkimaria's concern over sources. --John (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the remaining copyediting issues? Also, see my comment below about sources. Nikkimaria has only said that she found problems in her spotchecks - as I've argued below they all arose for different reasons and you can't generalise about it. I think it's rather unfair to oppose when you have given no indication of a specific issue that can be addressed. How am I supposed to resolve your concerns if I don't have anything specific to work with? Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair question. I don't have specific problems at this point, hence the weakness of my opinion. I would like (no offence to you at all) another opinion on the sourcing issue as I can't check the sources. I worry that there may still be more copyediting issues, because each time I look I find more minor issues. Again, a second pair of eyes would be ideal. It worries me that the duplicated paragraphs stayed in the article for more than 24 hours unnoticed by anyone. So I still weakly oppose promotion until these issues are resolved. I am utterly sure they can be. --John (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who can/will do this? Is there anyone else who can check the sources or do the copyediting? Prioryman (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think nobody noticed because it's been hard to keep track with this amount of activity - just trying to tie up all the loose ends brought up in this discussion has caused a huge amount of edits. For the final copyedit, maybe we should simply ask WP:GOCE? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added it to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Potential Featured Articles. It's only fifth in line now, so it should get noticed soon enough. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've also asked one of my favourite copy-editors to take a look. --John (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a result of that, another copyedit, by User:Stfg, is mostly done now (I'm tying up a few loose ends). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could someone with access to the CIA source check that this remains true to the source, please? --John (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, thanks. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --John (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I took another run through the prose, and I think I am now happy with the quality. Per Quadell's opinion below I now think I can support the promotion of this article. --John (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment and it is looking even better now, a few other people have looked it over, it now comfortably meets our criteria in the area of prose, and I see some discussion in article talk that will lead to even further improvement. --John (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quadell

 * Comment: I feel strongly that it is not appropriate to source statement to Encyclopedia Britannica, in an article like this. (It would be similarly inappropriate for them to use our article as a source.) Since this only involves two statements, it should be possible to find a better source for these. – Quadell (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I ask why? I hope you're not suggesting that it's an unreliable source. See above for my comment about the author of the entry in question. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a product of my background in academics, but using a general encyclopedia as a source seems very unprofessional to me. It's generally unacceptable in a formal research paper, and in my opinion, a Featured Article should be at roughly that level of quality and reliability. – Quadell (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replaced the Britannica sources. Prioryman (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for indulging my (arguably valid) biases. – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is comprehensive, but I don't believe it's too long or off-topic. It's clearly well-written, as I believe the MoS has been followed. (And obviously it's an important topic.) I'm leaning toward supporting, but my main concern is that the previous spotchecks revealed one copyright violation and three inaccuracies. These were quickly fixed, and I don't doubt the good faith and determination of the nominators. If there were more spotchecks, I would feel more comfortable. Does anyone know if the previous spotchecks looked only at only the four sources that turned up problems, or others as well that were unproblematic? – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did the spotchecks above. I checked only three sources, and IIRC found at least one problem per source. I have not, at this point, checked any other sources, and many of them for one reason or another are not accessible to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that there were problems, but I don't think this should be exaggerated (not that I'm accusing anyone of doing this). The issues all arose from different sources - an old copyvio that had spread to multiple articles, a simple typographical error, a misreading of a source and another editor going beyond what a source said. I don't think you can generalise on that basis. It's a large and complex article (with nearly 200 references!) so some sourcing errors are going to be inevitable, but I'm confident that such errors are the exception. As for inaccessible sources, inevitably there will be many (a lot of library research was involved here) but ultimately some level is trust is going to have to be assumed in such cases. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would instead say that we might expect people to have an issue with the attribution of a few contentious statements to books such as the Sebotovsky's "Battle of Vukovar", published by the Marine Corps University, with no listed ISBN, that Google doesn't know anything about. The cited text generally seems insightful, but the source looks a bit suspect. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, what a silly problem - the author's surname was misspelled. Found it and fixed it now. It's a postgraduate student research paper of a Croatian officer, the mentor is a US officer who also seems to be a published author, so it's now clear that it's a legitimate source. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Further spotchecks. Now that Šebetovsky's thesis is available, I checked all statements cited to it: 11 unique footnotes supporting 15 statements. (All footnotes refer to this version.) I found no verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. In the cases of footnotes 2a, 2b, 54a, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 88, and 93, the statements in the article were fully supported material in the thesis. But there were two major problems: the statements sourced to footnotes 54b and 70b were not found in the source at all at the pages given. These are significant problems. In addition, I have two nitpicks. Footnote 2c is sourced to page 11, but both pages 11 and 12 were required to back up the statement. 70a, similarly, is sourced to page 27, but should be 26-27. These are minor issues, however. It's 54b and 70b that are the serious concerns. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found those two and fixed them, the numbers were wrong. I'll also apply the other fixes you suggested. Thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. I rechecked, and the statements are validly sourced now. In each case, the material was present in the source listed, but at the wrong page numbers. It was never a case of original research or plagiarism. – Quadell (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. This was a difficult decision. Sourcing is sloppier than I'd like, and I'd feel better if every footnote were rechecked by the nominators. I strongly considered withholding support for this reason. Still, the material has been accurate and present in the sources whenever I've checked (despite problems with author names, page numbers, etc., discovered in this nomination review). I checked five more footnotes, finding no further problems. I do not believe there are significant inaccuracies, original research, or POV problems in this article. Beyond the sourcing examinations, I think this article is top-notch. Unlike John, I think the prose is very good and the content well-organized. In my opinion, this fully complies with our FA criteria, even if it's a close call in one area. – Quadell (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha
Given the sourcing issues found, I think it'd be good if someone (perhaps one of the nominators) went over the remaining sources to check whether everything is all right. Ucucha (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the article needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Ucucha/HarvErrors shows two minor problems: the reference to Kaiser (1995) (currently ref. 155) does not point to anything, and there is nothing pointing to the citation by Špegelj (2001). Ucucha (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are both the result of recent editing; I've restored Kaiser and removed Špegelj, as the latter citation was used for some text that is now no longer in the article. Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In connection with recent copyediting, I and others have been looking over the references. A reference lost in a previous edit was recovered, and a typo in an existing reference was corrected (it went to the wrong page number). Otherwise no further problems have come to light. Prioryman (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

 * The following is a complete list of all of the images used in the article:
 * File:Vukovar-watertower-after-war.jpg
 * File:Flag of SFR Yugoslavia.svg
 * The image's template states This template must not be used on its own. What is the copyright status of this flag?  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Battle of Vukovar. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything in that discussion about this flag, nor of any actions taken to resolve this. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, it wasn't resolved there - I ended up replacing the logos that were mentioned in that discussion because there wasn't a satisfactory outcome. Regarding the flag, I've asked a local expert for advice (Joy, I've cc'd you). Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it's the same issue - SFRY created some official public domain content, the successor states continued to do the same thing with official content, and now we're stuck in a false dilemma as to whether the old content is still in the public domain. It is, we're being a bunch of silly bureaucrats. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The flag design was published in the January 1946 Yugoslav constitution published by the official gazette "Službeni list FNRJ" in Belgrade. So PD-SerbiaGov applies. I tagged it.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 08:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some other things needed, but considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Serbs in Yugoslavia 1981 Vukovar.svg
 * Derivative work that traces back to File:Srbi u Jugoslaviji.jpg, which is now under discussion at PUF (Possibly unfree files/2011 October 19); where can we verify that Dr Vladimir Đurić & Dr Vujadin Rudić have released the base material into the public domain? Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific authors of the specific picture certainly seem to hold copyright on it. The data they claim to have used is census data from the Yugoslav state statistics bureaus. The derived images are actually bad because they don't specify a threshold used for the 'Serb' tinting, and they certainly don't seem as detailed. But, this simplicity actually makes them that much easier to remake without being a derived work of copyrighted images. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the doubts about this image I've replaced it with File:Pozdrav iz Vukovara 1912.jpg, a copyright-expired image suggested earlier by Justice & Arbitration. Prioryman (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume that as the uploader, you have the postcard? Could you upload the rear of the postcard (with the postmark) to allow verification of the year of publication?  Jappalang (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just have an image of the front side, received from a collector. According to his description the rear is blank apart from the name of the publisher (Naklada Sriemskih Novina) and the year, 1912. Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to ask him to provide the rear? Is there another source that can collaborate the publication year of this postcard?  Jappalang (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Already asked, but no reply received as yet. I've found a website with a number of images of other old postcards, apparently of the same series, dated to around the same time (see e.g. http://www.balkanpostcards.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1310) so there seems to be little reason to doubt that the publication year is correct. If I don't manage to get a copy of the rear, are you prepared to take it on trust? Prioryman (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to do that. The goal is not for me to use that picture, it is for anyone who might decide to publish that postcard in their book or print on a mug and sell it for money.  It would be bad for them to run into trouble (just because they blindly believe what we state) if there is a valid copyright and someone sues them (and thus also harming the reputations of these projects here).  That said, this postcard serves an example of what (postmarked) would in my opinion be preferred.  If the card is on a reliable auction site or store, one could take at face value the date stated; those on forums, however, may be guesswork and hence suspect.  Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. In that case, I've removed it from the article until such time as its date can be definitively established - it's not essential to the article. Prioryman (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At this site there are four postcard images with front and back available, maybe you can use that to verify age of some of them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, you can re-insert the postcard; I have traced its source (see the image page) and there is a rear view (with the postmark). The person you received it from likely got it from the site I found (the lines on the card match).  Alternatively, you can use File:Greetings from Vukovar - View of the Danube (front).jpg.  Tomobe3, that is a great find.  Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, both of you. Prioryman (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Flag of Serbian Krajina (1991).svg
 * File:Flag of SR Serbia.svg
 * File:Tigrovizastava.jpg
 * Since the creator is a volunteer and belongs to a paramilitary organization, the flag (and its coat of arms if original) would not be considered a part of the governing body (hence, would not seem to apply).  What is the copyright status for the coat of arms?  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stricken (replaced with File:Flag of Serbia 1992-2004.svg per below). Jappalang (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Beli-Orlovi-First-Battalion-insignia-Serbian-paramilitary.jpg
 * As stated in the image's template, "This federal law applies for both republics, Serbia and Montenegro, as long as they do not adopt own inherent laws." Serbia has its own law.  Please clarify.  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken the safest course and replaced the above two images with File:Flag of Serbia 1992-2004.svg. Prioryman (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concern stricken (replacement flag looks okay). Jappalang (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Flag of Croatia.svg
 * File:Logo of Croatian National Guard.svg
 * What is the copyright of the underlying subject? Source of official blazon/image for comparison/verification?  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the metadata now. For an official source, that's tricky because OSRH no longer seems to have this historical logo on current record - which is logical because it's long obsolete, really. We do have a roundabout way of determining its veracity - File:Dvadeseta obljetnica formiranja OSRH zastava ZNG RH 270511 1361.jpg is a picture taken at the official 20th anniversary march, but again we have to trust the Wikipedian who uploaded it. I think I see the same flag on the official pictures of the parade, but I couldn't find one where it's clearly shown. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am noting a concern with the basis of claiming there is no copyright for all government work in Croatia. See commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.  Can anyone provide proof the PD claim applies to graphical works?  Jappalang (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given these concerns I've removed the logos above and below. If the issue is resolved by the time the article appears on the Main Page I'll restore them, but it's better to err on the side of caution for the moment. Prioryman (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The official emblems are public domain if and when they are defined by law. For example:
 * Zakon o obrani
 * 10. Zastave, znak i oznake u Oružanim snagama
 * Članak 115.
 * Postrojbe Oružanih snaga imaju svoje zastave.
 * Zastave postrojba Oružanih snaga propisuje vrhovni zapovjednik na prijedlog ministra obrane.
 * Članak 116.
 * Znak Oružanih snaga sadrži grb i naziv Republike Hrvatske.
 * Izgled znaka Oružanih snaga, oznaka činova, dužnosti i pripadnosti granama, rodovima, službama i strukama, oznaka zapovjedništava, postrojba i ustanova te izgled vojnih odora propisuje ministar obrane.
 * So the law literally prescribes that the top-ranked government officials define how the emblems look like - I fail to see how that would let the minister of defence claim copyright on them, instead these institutions are simply tasked with the work by the Parliament, while it remains clear that all they do is based in this law. Whatever else they publish on their websites doesn't matter and copyright can be claimed I guess. Although, I think the main point here is that you are arguing against a point that nobody else is making - I tagged those two official emblems as PDGov, not whatever random other government work. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is ongoing at Commons; if there is evidence or consensus that Croatian copyright law exempts graphical works done by its government, then the images can be restored. Their removal from this article, however, allows the concerns to be stricken without further delaying this candidacy's processing.  Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Osrh.jpg
 * What is the copyright of the underlying subject? Source of official blazon/image for comparison/verification?  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the metadata now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above Jappalang (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Prioryman (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Croatian War 1991 foot patrol.jpg
 * File:Vukovar-croatia-serbia-50k-2885i-1995.jpg
 * File:Mursa osijek 1991.jpg
 * I do not believe Rozsa-Flores Eduardo took and uploaded this image, especially when a larger version 700px × 470px is available at http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/151/mursa1.jpg/, which is presented as a downscaled 640px × 430px. The image here is a screen capture of that downscaled image (readily evident by Difference on Photoshop).  Image DR at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mursa osijek 1991.jpg  Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing we can do about this one I'm afraid. It's possible that the picture was taken by Flores and published somewhere before it was scanned and uploaded onto the Internet but finding out where it was originally published is nearly impossible. I tried tracking it down by looking up the vehicle shown in a book about improvised armoured carriers used by the Croatian military and another image of it is in there but very little is known about it apart from that it was used in and around Osijek and Vinkovci. So it's a dead end.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed this image. Prioryman (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Possible" does not quite fall in with Commons's precautionary principle (especially when a single-contribution user is the uploader). If Eduardo did release the image under that sort of licensing, proof must be given (OTRS, impossible now though, or his statement on a site).  Since this image is removed from the article, the concern is stricken.  Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Jna t-55 slovenia.jpg
 * The uploader is a serial copyright violator, see Contributor copyright investigations. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this was deleted, it should be considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:JNA offensive plan 1991.jpg
 * Violation of WP:IUP (2), where can we verify this is a CIA work? Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The original uploader said this came from the May 2002 book Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995, published by the CIA and created by their Office of Russian and European Analysis, ISBN 9780160664724 It was published in two volumes, I found a scanned version of Vol 1 online and can confirm this came from that book. The maps came in a separate case without page numbers and were marked 1-63 (for battlefield maps) and A-Q (strategic maps). Battlefield maps are all viewable at the Library of Congress (clicking on the map shown opens a gallery of all maps from the book; hi-res scans are downloadable in the JPEG2000 file format). I couldn't find this particular map on their website but I can confirm it was published in the book, titled "Map F - JNA Strategic Offensive Plan, 1991" and a tiny caption below "DI Cartography Center 753545AI (R00446) 8-01"  Timbouctou ( talk ) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have access to the original (including the map folio) and can confirm this. The Perry-Castaneda Map Collection has a few of these maps on its website (see under "Late Twentieth Century" on http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html). Prioryman (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the main contributors/nominators have access to the material and knows where to look, please correct the image page to resolve the concerns. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the image page with PD-USGov-CIA and added source description (and did the same for the two other maps from Balkan Battlegrounds). Let me know if the fields are filled in correctly.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 10:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Eastern slavonia 91-92 map.jpg
 * Violation of WP:IUP (2), where can we verify this is a US Federal work? Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also originally published in CIA's Balkan Battlegrounds. It's titled "Croatia: Eastern Slavonia, September 1991 - January 1992", Map 3. Also available at Library of Congress online.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Page number would be help, but the LoC is a great find; so stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Croatian War 1991 Vukovar destroyed tank.jpg
 * The caption claims the tank is a T-55, even though the tank is clearly a T-72 or M-84 (compare main gun barrels). The image description at the Commons also claims it to be a T-72. Still the T-72 purchased by the JNA in 1977 lacks smoke grenade launchers (available only two years later on the T-72A) but the M-84 produced in Yugoslavia has those and is generally the same in external appearance to the T-72A. I am therefore quite confident that the tank in the image is in fact the M-84.
 * On the second thought, further sources I checked indicate that the JNA acquired the T-72M which is a twin to the M-84 except for minor features not available in the image. Based on that I could only confidently say the tank in the image is not T-55 and it is either a T-72 variant or an M-84.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a T-72 variant, but I'll check on this. Prioryman (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Battle of vukovar map.jpg
 * Violation of WP:IUP (2), where can we verify this is a US Federal work? Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also originally published in CIA's Balkan Battlegrounds. It's titled "Croatia: Battle of Vukovar, September-November 1991", Map 2. Also available at Library of Congress online.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Page number would be help, but the LoC is a great find; so stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Vukovar hospital3.JPG
 * File:Croatian War 1991 Vukovar street.jpg
 * File:Ovcara building.JPG
 * Need a check on what licensing it was uploaded to German Wikipedia; as far as I know, German copyright law does not allow release into public domain (the rights are non-transferable). Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)  (Just noticed the PD template has a caveat for regions where PD is not possible.  Jappalang (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
 * File:Croatian War 1991 child refugee.jpg
 * File:Croatian War 1991 Vukovar destroyed.jpg
 * File:Croatian War 1991 Vukovar destruction.jpg
 * File:Reconstruction in Vukovar.jpg
 * File:The White Cross Vukovar Croatia.jpg
 * They are all under free licences but I will leave it to others more knowledgeable than myself to review them. Prioryman (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe these concerns should be addressed before promotion to FA. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think these issues should all now be resolved. Prioryman (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a mess-- please ping Jappalang and have him indicate if images are clear. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Every issue he raised has been tackled, so he will hopefully be satisfied with the current state of play. Prioryman (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my work is piling up. I found something weird with the PD template used for Croatian (and by extension Serbian) government works, and the answers I got made my doubts grow (see Commons discussion referred above).  I understand it is no fault of the nominators here, but I think according to the FA criteria, we are trying to show the readers a "brilliant" article compliant with the policies and guidelines of the project; I believe a doubtful application of a template for its images would not follow this rule.  Jappalang (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only the postcard is of concern now. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've removed it from the article, I think this last issue should now be resolved. Prioryman (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found supporting evidence for the postcard's public domain status, so it can be re-inserted if desired. Regardless, I have no issues with the images in the article now: they are all fine (verifiable public domain status or appropriately licensed).  Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Would File:Sfrj.png be acceptable? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't think it adds anything. We already have plenty of maps, and the previous image selections for that section were specific to Vukovar itself - the ethnic majorities and the old postcard. This would just be a general map. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was simply searching for a free image :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil
Comment. This a very large and important article and is now over 130kb with many hands on deck. Managing sources in such circumstanced is very difficult to say the least. I take the main editors at face value and can see they have been at pains to present a balanced telling. But I also appreciate that they need to undertake an audit of sources per above, but my guess is that this will be relatively easily done and I dont anticipate any major issues coming from it. I see a substantial achievement here and look forward to supporting after the cross checking is complete. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

J&A
Support. Nothing really noteworthy of criticizing here. One can find as much flaws here as in 90 % of other good/featured articles here on Wikipedia, generally speaking. You and I may lean towards different versions, but should both agree that the article is still fine the way it is. Prioryman did a very thorough research and managed to put it all on one place.

Just a couple of small side-notes, entirely irrelevant to my support. Personally, I think that there was never a need to shorten the article in the first place, since such a big event deserves an in-depth analysis and therefor justifies for up to 200kb of size. I already wrote that the article could use more images (for instance, this in the section that deals with looting from castle Eltz), but Prioryman does not share my opinion, so therefor I must yield. Also, I think the 1912 image of Vukovar was more fitting in the background section since it showed how the city looked like before the conflict.

Reference no. 9 needs to be fixed, since the Bell source was moved onto the "External links" section. Also, I think that a link for Tomislav Mercep should me made in the "Prelude to the battle" section, to know that he was the leader of the Croatian paramilitary. Lastly, when one speaks about the "Indictments and trials" section, one could divide it into those trials led by the ICTY and the ones led by local courts. I am not sure, but does any one know how many people were indicted on the Croatian side for Vukovar? If there is no data, feel free to forget it. This concludes my rant. Cheers.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference #9 is now fixed again - it was broken as part of this review :) I'll have a look at the other issues too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You fixed the reference, all right, but now you removed what was originally saying in the lead. Namely, that it was the first European city to be entierly destroyed since World War II. Other sources also confirm it:, . A noteworthy data that should be there. Furthermore, the new text that replaced the previous one now contradicts another sentence in the lead: one sentence says that 700.000 shells were fired at the town, the new says 2,5 million. You need to get your act together.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They don't actually contradict - the old claim says "into the town", while the new claim explicitly includes surroundings - I'm guessing the discrepancy might even include Borovo Naselje. But it should be reorganized, yes. The Guardian article will do fine as a source for the old text. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.