Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cer


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Cer

 * Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed GAN and was extensively copy-edited by User:HueSatLum of the Guild of Copy Editors not too long after. I believe it meets all A-Class criteria. It covers an interesting battle which took place in August 1914, and was the first Allied victory of the First World War. It also ended the first Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia. 23 editor (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The Battle of Cer ... was a military engagement fought": The Battle of Cer ... was fought
 * This one would benefit from re-reading. For instance: "killed killed", "killed soldiers killed", "rejected.[9]."
 * "The number of Austro-Hungarian troops assigned to the invasion of Serbia was far smaller than the originally intended 308,000–strong force,[when?] because a large portion of the Austro-Hungarian 2nd Army moved to the Russian Front, reducing the number of troops involved in the initial stages of the invasion of Serbia to approximately 200,000.": hyphen not dash, repetition, "when" tag, "had moved" - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dank! I've addressed your comments and made some changes. 23 editor (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I just came back to this; much better. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day. Good work, I took a quick look at the article and have the following suggestions/comments: Done.
 * "File:Potiorek oskar fzm 1853 1933 photo2.jpg": needs a US licence as well as the one that is already on the image description page. PD-US-1923 is probably sufficient;
 * G'day, thanks, but I'm not sure that "PD-old-100" is the correct licence here. It is only appropriate if the author is known to have died more than 100 years ago, but currently the image description page does not seem to identify the author. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Done. Unfortunately, they'd all some will end up being redlinks. How do you think I should proceed?
 * "File:Spomenik palim junacima Cerske Bitke.JPG": does Serbia have freedom of panorama? If so, please add a FoP licence to the image description page;
 * in the infobox, can the units be linked?
 * I'd suggest linking them, but only once. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * links for 13th Army Corps, 4th Army Corps?
 * Added.

These would also be redlinks. Is this alright?
 * Yes, per WP:REDLINK. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fixed. Fixed. Done. Fixed. Added. Removed. I've addressed most of your comments with this edit. I have also fixed the licences on the photos you mentioned. Thanks for your comments. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "encountered the Serbian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Armies". The link here for the Second Army should be moved to it first mention;
 * "General Stepa Stepanović, was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal" --> "General Stepa Stepanović, was promoted to the rank of field marshal"(per WP:MILTERMS);
 * inconsistent presentation: "machine-guns" v. "machine guns";
 * "forty-six cannon, thirty machine guns" --> the link here for "machine guns" should be moved to its first mention earlier in the article;
 * in the References, inconsistent presentation: for instance, "Bloomington, Indiana" v. "Cambridge, Mass." (one uses abbreviation, the other doesn't);
 * in the References, is there a place of publication for the Horne work?
 * based on experience at FAC, I don't think it is necessary to include things like "Inc" and "Ltd" in the publisher names. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've done a little copy editing on the article. Before I go further, could you please take a look at my changes and check that I haven't changed your meaning too much? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. Thank you very much for taking the time to go through with the copy-edits. 23 editor (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, continuing my review below. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Rifles were also in critically short supply because Serbia could not produce any domestically, nor could it import them from abroad." Could you please clarify this? Surely the Serbs were either able to locally-produce or import at some stage (otherwise they'd have had no rifles whatsoever), so had the situation changed for some reason, e.g. had an international treaty banned them from importing etc?
 * "...Serbian General Staff could do was wait until the enemy's invasion plan materialized" --> this is a very Serbian narrative voice, and while I understand that this is sometimes avoidable, is it possible to balance it somehow? For instance, perhaps replace "enemy's" with "the Austro-Hungarian"
 * is there anything that can be said about the Austro-Hungarian commanders' response to the set backs in the Battle section?
 * in the Aftermath, you mention that the Serbian commander was promoted, were any repercussions for the Austro-Hungarian commander?
 * in the Aftermath section, "that certain cultural groups in Italy" --> is it possible to provide some examples of which cultural groups did this?
 * in the Casualties section, is there anything that can be said from the Austro-Hungarian point of view about the atrocities? If nothing has been written, that's fine, but currently the article seems very much as if it is written from a Serbian point of view and I think it might need to be balanced a bit more;
 * in the first paragraph of the Casualties section, I would suggest moving the citations to the end of the sentences to which they relate. For instance, "Jordan[5] states that the Austro-Hungarians suffered a total of 37,000 casualties in the battle, of whom 7,000 were fatalities." --> Jordan states that the Austro-Hungarians suffered a total of 37,000 casualties in the battle, of whom 7,000 were fatalities.[5]" (and the other examples in the paragraph as well). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AR. I've addressed most of your comments: I've removed the bit about Serbia not being able to produce or import rifles because the source isn't precise, so I figure it's better off removed. I've made the wording more neutral (enemy's>Austro-Hungarian), added that both sides committed atrocities during the campaign (couldn't find any specifics regarding Serb atrocities), and added Potiorek's response to defeat in the battle. I've also addressed your last point. As for the bit about "Italian cultural groups", the source doesn't go into specifics. Would it be better off removed? 23 editor (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for making those changes. A couple of follow-on points:
 * "Atrocities were committed by both the Austro-Hungarians and Serbs, with the Austro-Hungarians committing more only because they had more opportunities to do so." --> I'm not sure about this wording. Given what you are talking about, I think it might be best to attribute the statement in text by mentioning who is stating this. For instance, "Atrocities were committed by both the Austro-Hungarians and Serbs, although according to author Lawrence Sondhaus, the majority were committed by Austro-Hungarians because..."
 * "held in such high esteem that certain cultural groups in Italy advocated..." --> perhaps if you use direct quotes from the source (using the source's words), it would deal with the issue about the lack of specifics. For example "held in such high esteem that, according to Mitrovic, in Italy "certain cultural groups advocated entering the war on the Allied side"..." (replacing the quoted words here with those used in the source"
 * "...citing Serbia and Montenegro as examples" --> Examples of what? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. 23 editor (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I've added my support above as you have addressed all of my points. Apologies if I missed anything (the topic isn't something I know much/anything about). Hopefully a few more reviewers will come along and give it the once over also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers and thank you. 23 editor (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links all check out (no action req'd).
 * All images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Image review completed above (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
 * There seems to be an illogical progression b/n the first paragraph and the second paragraph of the background. The first paragraph ends with the war beginning, while the 2nd para starts by talking about the number of Austro-Hungarian troops assigned to the first invasion of Serbia. Issue is here that you need to introduce the fact that such an invasion was planned / commenced etc (all it needs is a sentence stating this).
 * Typo here: "resulted in heavy Austro-Hungarians losses...", should be: "...resulted in heavy Austro-Hungarian losses."
 * Perhaps add links to Serbian 1st Combined Division, 1st Šumadija Division, 1st Morava Division, 21st Landwehr Division, 42nd Mountain Division, 36th Infantry Division and a number of other presumably notable Serbian and Austro-Hungarian formations that don't seem to be linked.
 * Reports from the front announced that "the enemy is withdrawing in the greatest disorder." - whose reports? Presumably Serbian from the language. Should be clarified I think.
 * Popular culture sections need to be treated with care. Per WP:MILPOP such sections "...should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided..."
 * Placement of the commonscat box is incorrect. See Template: Commons category which states: "Do not place this template in a section containing columns without floating left. In articles, this template should be placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists."
 * Otherwise this article is looking in very good shape to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, A.C. I've addressed all of your comments with this edit. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday. Good work - happy to spt. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks for the review. 23 editor (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Done. Done. Done. Done. Done. Fixed. Done. Done. Altered. Source please? Changed. Added how civilians mutilated A-H soldiers and the Austrian hatred of Serbs because of the war. The bit about Muslims doesn't necessarily relate to the Battle of Cer, does it? Removed. Fixed. Removed. Done. Please clarify what you mean. Added. The bit about casualties includes both killed and wounded (casrep?), in which case the sources already present are sufficient to paint a picture of what casualties were. 23 editor (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * suggest you make the redlinks for the Austria-Hungary armies and divisions consistent (including in the infobox), and consistent with MOS. Recommend Second Army (Austria-Hungary), using (Austria-Hungary) as the standard disambiguation.✅
 * suggestion only: add alt text to all images for accessibility reasons✅
 * suggest "308,000-strong force intended in July" be "308,000-strong force intended when war was declared"✅
 * suggest "replenish its shell stocks" be "replenish its ammunition stocks"✅
 * a quick Google Books search indicates that Šajkača should not have an initial capital.✅
 * They also had better stocks of munitions, as well as a much better transport and industrial infrastructure behind them✅
 * Hence is pretty archaic, suggest "As a result" or "Putnik therefore"✅
 * suggest you review each use of "however", IMO it is rarely needed if the preceding and following text is clear. For example, "The Serbian General Staff knew, however, that the bulk of the Austro-Hungarian forces were stationed in Bosnia and refused to be misled by these feints on the Danube" could be rendered as "The bulk of the Austro-Hungarian forces were stationed in Bosnia, and the Serbian General Staff refused to be misled by these feints on the Danube"✅
 * The "Despite the fact that many went to the front wielding pitchforks and axes brought from their farms, most Serb soldiers were highly motivated, which compensated in part for their lack of weaponry" sentence, regardless of sourcing, is highly romanticised. Pitchforks have a poor record against Mausers. I suggest removing it. No doubt they were highly motivated to defend their country, and that aspect should be retained IMO, but the "pitchfork and axe" bit is too much.✅
 * Probably worth pointing out that Kosanin grad was the site of a medieval fortress, puts Cer's importance as a defensive position in context.✅
 * Fair point. I only know because I've been there. And despite this, the only ref to the fortress I could find with a quick search is this, which probably not a good enough source. Forgettaboutit...
 * there is a fair amount of "crushing", "conquering" (of villages), and "annihilation" going on, suggest either detail actual losses or look for alternate wording. Reliance on Glenny (a journalist), may be contributing to this.✅
 * Atrocities by Serb forces are mentioned, but the remainder of space is focussed on A-H atrocities, including a long quote. Are there no sources on the details of Serb atrocities committed? Sondhaus has a bit more to say about the motives behind the atrocities and arrests for treason etc, which I think should be added to maintain neutrality and provide the full picture, including the Austrians hatred towards Serbs for starting the war. Sondhaus also mentions Muslims fleeing Serbia at the start of the war, which provides some context.✅
 * No, on reflection it doesn't directly relate to this battle, more the war in general.
 * "By then, no Austro-Hungarian soldiers remained free on Serbian soil." is a little romantic too, suggest toning it down with neutral language.✅
 * I'm not sure that Glenny is countering Jordan, Perhaps "in contrast" would be a better formulation?✅
 * The figure on Serb wounded is consistent across all three sources used, no need to contrast there.✅
 * Why did A-H forces in Montenegro have to withdraw? Needs greater explanation.✅
 * need to chop the ref field from the Further reading text.✅
 * Did it myself.
 * no mention of one of the "firsts" of WWI, the dogfight between the Serbian and Austrian aircraft during the battle (the Austrian armed with a revolver)?
 * Glenny p.316 is the reference for the dogfight.
 * this source provides some information about ammo expenditure and another version of the casrep.✅

Where would you suggest I add the info about the dogfight since Glenny doesn't mention which date it occurred on? 23 editor (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Aftermath section, I reckon. Along the lines of "The first ever aerial dogfight occurred during the battle, when..." ✅


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.