Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kragujevac massacre/archive1


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017.

Kragujevac massacre

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) and 23 editor.

This article is about a massacre of nearly 2,800 men and boys carried out by the German Army in the occupied territory of Serbia during WWII. It was carried out in reprisal for the killing of 10 German soldiers and the wounding of 26 others in accordance with a set ratio of 100 hostages to be executed for each dead German soldier and 50 hostages for every wounded German soldier. Several of the generals responsible for ordering the massacre were tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

 * Some great work has gone here, and I am certainly leaning towards supporting this nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Yugoslavia came to share its northwestern border with the Third Reich " - this is the first mention of the Third Reich in the article. Many readers will be familiar with this term, but there will surely be some who are not. I would recommend replacing it with "Nazi Germany". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "her neighbours" - I'm being picky here, but I'm not sure that describing Yugoslavia with female pronouns is particularly encyclopaedic. A more neutral "it" would be more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, done.


 * "Adolf Hitler began placing" - who is Adolf Hitler? I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it important that we specify "Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler" or something of that nature. There may be readers in parts of the developing world for whom Hitler does not have quite the same fame (or infamy) that he has in Europe and North America. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I went with German dictator.


 * "Two days later, a group of pro-Western, Serbian nationalist Royal Yugoslav Air Force officers deposed the country's regent, Prince Paul, in a bloodless coup d'état, placed his teenaged nephew Peter on the throne, and brought to power a "government of national unity" led by the head of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, General Dušan Simović.[" - This is quite a lengthy sentence. How about trimming it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Split.


 * "puppet government" - maybe link it to puppet state. "anti-communist" could be linked to anti-communism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, as it was only a puppet government, and not a puppet state.
 * Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be worth restructuring the lede a little. At present the article has one rather long opening paragraph, two medium length ones, and then a short one. Generally I think it best to start with a shorter opening paragraph, or at least to keep the lede paragraphs somewhat consistent; the excellent lede over at Gudovac massacre would be one to emulate on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in "Clash at Gornji Milanovac" is very lengthy. I would suggest dividing it in two at an appropriate juncture. Maybe just before "A German officer who escaped reported..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day have adopted both of your suggestions above. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks smashing. Without doubt, this article has my Support; hopefully it will get some attention from other editors too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88
My initial comment is about the extent to which the article uses exhibits from the Nuremburg Trials as sources. For example, much of the section entitled "Round-up" is sourced to a 20 October 1941 report written by von Bischofhausen about the events of 18-20 October (pp. 981 to 983). Von Bischofhausen of course was an integral player in those events, and his report is necessarily self-serving, pinning a great deal of blame upon König. I'm not entirely sure that it is safe to rely upon contemporary accounts by involved military officers as statements of fact about what happened. They are primary, not secondary, sources.

One other point about von Bischofhausen's report: he says that the villages of Mečkovac, Maršić, Grošnica and Milatovac were "mopped up", which I'm not sure is a euphemism for "destroyed" (the word the article uses).

I have also reviewed Misha Glenny's book, which I own, and that is represented accurately. Syek88 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is obviously a likelihood that Von Bischofhausen's version of events is biased, but his account is only one version, it is contrasted with another one. It was also accepted by the Tribunal, so they must have given it some credence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have amended the text to "mopped up". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still a primary source though, is it not? Aside from that point, the citation is to 'Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1950). "The Hostage Case".', which is apt to miselad, as it suggests that the citation is a judgment or document promulgated by the court rather than an exhibit of evidence written by a witness. If the exhibit is to be used as a source, and I think that is very questionable, the author in the citation should be von Bischofhausen. Syek88 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it can be used carefully as a primary source as it provides some detail not available elsewhere, but on reflection, agree it was not clarified sufficiently that it was evidence tendered at the trial. I have removed von Bischofhausen's account of the earlier operation, as Glenny is probably sufficient there, and have now made it much clearer that this is just von Bischofhausen's version of events and cited his report to him. Here are my edits. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that just about works. I will try to have another read-through tomorrow. Syek88 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , did you still want to add comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise- I have gone almost entirely offline. Could I please have another 36 hours? Syek88 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had one more read-through of the article and am happy to support. I have not had the chance to conduct a detailed review of the prose, but at a broad level the article reads well, I could not identify any grammatical clangers, and others have reviewed prose. A few weeks ago I was focused on sourcing, and I checked to see that Misha Glenny's book was represented accurately. The article is accurate and comprehensive. Syek88 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review from


 * I agree with Syek88 - it needs to be made clearer that the "Nuremberg" source is actually von Bischofhausen's testimony, not something that the Nuremberg Court put out. The reliability of using a primary source for information in the article I leave to the other reviewers, but I note that we really should use secondary accounts when possible.
 * Otherwise sources look good.
 * Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Great article. All of the concerns above seem to have been addressed, and I couldn't find anything else to nitpick, myself. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

support comments by auntieruth

 * wow, this looks very fine. I'll need another read through.
 * Syke above brought up a Sources, so I had a look at them. I don't have an issue with the "primary sources" because they appear to be used with some judiciousness. Certainly Bischofhausen's statements in his original report are useful statements to establish what he presented as the facts of the case to his superiors.  The judgments from Nuremburg also are useful in establishing what the court ultimately believed to be the case and not, and the principal facts of conviction/acquittal.  I suspect that not using these sources would raise more questions than using them does. Of course, it is preferred to use secondary sources, however, the secondary sources might also cite the same source as he's citing, so wouldn't it be better to use the original source, rather than to go through the layers of sourcing?
 * some of the authors should be linked: Pierre Bourgois, for example, and Nauman, Klaus. Both have articles of their own. auntieruth (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruth. I have linked Bourgeois, Heer, and Naumann. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, did you still want another read-through? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. auntieruth (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.