Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. The article has been improved considerably since it passed GAN, using detail mainly drawn from Yugoslav sources. I believe it is comprehensive and meets or is close to meeting all the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action req'd).
 * Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
 * Captions look fine (no action req'd)
 * One duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * Slatina
 * The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd)
 * This is a little repetitive: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that such orders...", consider perhaps: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that they..." (suggestion only)
 * This doesn't sound quite right to me: "...the Yugoslav 601st Independent Battalion on the border in the Prekmurje region forward of Detachment Ormozki were attacked...", should this be "...was attacked..."?
 * Also a little repetitive: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment ordering...", perhaps consider: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment instructing'..." (suggestion only).
 * Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Ac. All addressed. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look fine. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: G'day, great article. I believe it meets A-class requirements. I have a couple of suggestions below for you to consider, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "On 6 April, the mobilisation of the 4th Army as a whole was only considered partial". Who considered it 'partial'?
 * Terzić, I've attributed in-line and removed "considered"
 * "and had to deploy on foot as infantry, and the division". Run on sentence; perhaps start a new sentence after "infantry".
 * Good point. Done.
 * "all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions". Do we know why they revolted?
 * the same reason as all the others, Ustasha propaganda. I've clarified.
 * "By late on 7 April, Petrović's" --> "By late evening on 7 April"?
 * Good point, typo. Fixed.
 * "the line Slovenska Bistrica—Ptuj exposed…" I think that this should be an endash, not an emdash;
 * Indeed. Not sure what happened there.
 * Unless I missed them, there do not appear to be any consolidated figures regarding the unit’s casualties. Do these exist? Do we know how many became prisoners of war in total?
 * Due to the confused nature of the fighting, the fact that the Army disintegrated, and the Germans didn't hang around in enough numbers to round up and disarm all the former soldiers (or count them against individual formations), casualty figures for the Yugoslavs are just not available. Same with numbers captured, as the Germans almost immediately released Croat soldiers to prop up their political treatment of the Ustashas.
 * Is there an inline citation that could be added for Note a? AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, I've treated it as WP:BLUE because it isn't controversial, IMO. Several divisions make a corps, several corps make an army. The Yugoslavs just skipped a level, I've never been able to establish the reason they decided to do it.
 * Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Armijski đeneral": Give the translation; in the first sentence of the article, don't even give the foreign term. Give your readers a chance to trust that reading effort will be rewarded before you give them tough things to chew on.
 * Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I got down to Deployment plan. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Got a little bit farther, down to 42nd Infantry Division Murska. Now I'm not so sure about FAC; this article is list-y, and sometimes reviewers frown on that. Not sure what to tell you; I think other A-class reviewers will have a better sense than I do about this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. Do you mean that because it includes the order of battle of the Army, or because of the chronological organisation of the content? I'm not sure this will ever go to FAC under my watch, and if it did and that was an issue, it could potentially go to FLC instead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it's not going to FAC, don't worry about it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * I don't love using "Reich" to refer to Germany - I'm guessing the idea is to refer to the state that incorporated Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland? In that case, "Greater Germany" (or even Nazi Germany) would probably be better.
 * There isn't an easy alternative in my view, especially when we are dealing with the border with what had been Austria. Greater Germany is Germano-centric, Nazi Germany is worse. Reich is pretty common in sources, and I use it consistently to refer to this border throughout articles on Yugoslavia in WWII (and pipe the link to Austria in the time of National Socialism rather than to Nazi Germany). The complexities of the "Austrian" involvement in Yugoslavia (ie use of Austrian-born divisional commanders, Austrian conscripted units, and the general issues that Austrians had with Serbs, lends itself to a more nuanced treatment.
 * Fair enough.
 * I'm somewhat confused by what foreign terms are italicized and what are not - "Luftwaffe" and "Stuka" (both fairly common in English) are italicized, but "Ustaše" and "Sturzkampfgeschwader" (less common in English) are not.
 * Good point, I didn't go through this one and check. Will ping when I'm done.
 * All done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Across two regiments of the 42nd Infantry Division Murska, Ustaše propaganda meant all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions." - this is awkwardly worded - I'd probably say something along the lines of "Ustaše propaganda led the bulk of two regiments from the 42nd div. to revolt; only two battalions from the units deployed to their allocated positions."
 * Good suggestion, done.
 * "About 10:30..." - I'd say "At about 10:30..."
 * A pet hate of mine. IMO, it is either "At (that time)", or "About (that time)".
 * I might split that paragraph (the one on the Gyékényes bridgehead), probably after the abortive counterattack.
 * Done.
 * Actually a lot of paragraphs are rather long and could be split. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have gone through and split a few more. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * all done now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 