Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95


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

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95

 * Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe the it meets the A-class criteria or is sufficiently well developed to meet the criteria during the ACR. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * I tweaked the first sentence to: "The order of battle of the Croatian special police in 1991–95 included up to 30 individual special forces units subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior." I'm assuming here that we're treating "order of battle" as a term that's going to be known to our readership ... otherwise, the term wouldn't be suitable in the article title. I believe that most of our project members think of that term as suitable for the readership they're expecting ... I don't, but I'm happy to go along with the majority. So, under that assumption, the first sentence of this article shouldn't be bolded, per WP:LEAD ... that's an article title that describes this article, and definitely not a proper noun. Also, even if "order of battle" is well-known enough to use in the first sentence, it's definitely not so well-known that we can do without a link ... but we can't link it and bold it at the same time, so the bolding has to go. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "special force", "special forces": Be careful, and consistent.
 * Fixed.
 * "the predominantly Serb-populated areas of the Dalmatian hinterland around Knin, parts of the Lika, Kordun, Banovina and eastern Croatia": ?
 * I made an attempt to clarify that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops ... I just saw the conversation where this article is described as a list. I'm not up on various requirements for lists, so I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, sorry I also don't know much about lists and might miss something in terms of preparing for FLC if that is where you are going. I will have a quick look, though, to help out:
 * the second sentence in the lead is quite long, I wonder if it could be split: "The special police was created around the existing airborne special forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior following an open revolt of the Croatian Serbs in August 1990, and increasing involvement of the Yugoslav People's Army in the conflict that escalated into the Croatian War of Independence in 1991, when the special police took part in the first clashes of the war in Pakrac and at the Plitvice Lakes. "
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure that the infobox is wholely appropriate given that it seems to relate to the Special police then and now (given the Active dates of 17 August 1990 - present). Not sure, though, but I'd possibly consider removing it altogether or removing the "Active" field to remove the contradiction...(probably best to get a few opinions on this, though, rather than just listening to me);
 * Since dates= parameter cannot be omitted altogether, I used start_date= instead changing "Active" field to "Founded". I'm not bent on having an infobox, but I thought one should be provided. If this is not a satisfactory solution, I'd be quite alright with removing it altogether.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm happy with your change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the licencing on "File:Croatian Special Police Logo.svg". I understand that you created the image, but is there residual copyright on the logo itself? Not sure really, but I think that this is the sort of question that might be raised at FLC;
 * The logo is published as a part of Croatian legislation, specifically "Regulation on uniform and insignia of members of the special police of the Ministry of the interior of the Republic of Croatia" ( here is its 1995 version). According to Croatian Copyright Act, specifically its Article 8, Paragraph 1, Section 1, legislation is exempt from copyright and may be freely used. Commons PD notice amended accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "File:20 godina osnivanja specijalne jedinice policije Alfa 03092011 11.jpg": I think this might also need a freedom of panorama licence?
 * Why? The FOP is required for say photos of copyrighted works of art displayed in public areas and similar. Article 91 of the Croatian Copyright Act contains FOP provisions, but I don't think the photo contains anything copyrightable. If needed I could add the FOP per Article 91, but right now I see no justification for that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll leave it up to you to decide. According to this it also applies to architecture, so it might be applicable to the building...I don't know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware the FOP applies to architecture too, but I'm not quite sure the structure in the photo is a building (permanent structure) at all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll leave it up to you to decide. It's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "By then, the 3,000-strong special forces became..." --> possibly try "The 3,000-strong special forces then became..."?
 * Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "During the war, the special police units sustained a loss of 179 killed, 790 wounded and 14 missing troops..." --> "During the war, the special police units lost 179 troops killed, 790 wounded and 14 missing"?
 * "During the war, Sisak SPU sustained loss of five killed and one missing in action..." --> "During the war, the Sisak SPU lost five killed and one missing in action"?
 * "The unit was deployed to the eastern Slavonia in September 1991..." ---> "The unit was deployed to eastern Slavonia in September 1991..."
 * Stopping there, but I will come back tomorrow (sorry its late here and I have to be up at 4am for work). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated Croatia's Territorial Defence (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance..." --> "The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated the Croatian Territorial Defence Force's (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance..."?
 * "The most effective part of the force was 3,000-strong special police deployed..." --> "The most effective part of the force was the 3,000-strong special police deployed..."
 * "Special Police Airborne Unit was already in existence since 1968. " --> "The Special Police Airborne Unit had been in established in 1968."?
 * "On 17 August 1990, the unit was deployed to quell Croatian Serb insurrection in and around Knin using three helicopters as the single combat capable unit of Croatian military..." ---> "On 17 August 1990, as the only combat capable unit of Croatian military, the unit was deployed to quell Croatian Serb insurrection in and around Knin using three helicopters..."
 * The above suggestions are just a few examples of sentences that need a little work. If you wouldn't mind covering off on these, and looking through the rest for similar issues, I will come back later and take another look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressed prose issues raised above. I'll review the rest as suggested later (hopefully today).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through the article a bit earlier and made a few tweaks, and I see you've made a couple more tweaks also. I'm happy with that. I'm not up on the requirements of featured lists (sorry), but I'm happy you have addressed my points, so I have added my support. I think Peacemaker has recent FLC experience, so you might ask him for his opinion. Good luck. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Croatia doubled police personnel to about 20,000 I think that this could be improved by adding either "its" or "the number of" immediately after personnel.
 * Added "its".
 * of police officers trained Zagreb "in" Zagreb
 * Oops. Added.
 * capable unit of Croatian military "the" Croatian
 * Fixed.
 * Put refs in numerical order: this looks odd [19][6]
 * Reordered.
 * So should we assume that a unit is still in existence if there's no mention of disbanding or reorganization into another unit? I ask because of the Lovinac SPU.
 * Actually no. Virtually none of those are still in existence. Most of the units directly subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior were disbanded in May 1991 when their personnel was transferred to the Croatian National Guard, Lučko remaining in existence though throughout the war. The regional units existed throughout the war and were disbanded in 2000s. Regarding Lovinac, I assume the unit was attached to something else (maybe even disbanded, but I doubt that) since the police station and AOR it was assigned to was lost. There simply is no info on that, except it was established. It is not entirely impossible that the Lovinac unit was subsequently (formally) subordinated to another unit similar to the Našice–Orahovica SPU - but again, there's no reliable (or otherwise) info on that unit beyond establishment. I clarified the fate of the first group of (directly subordinated) units.
 * For Lovinac specifically I'd say that the fate of the unit is unknown, but you need to add a statement about the fate of the regional units as I'd presumed that they were still in existence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarfication re fate of the regional units added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but which 4 survived? It's not clear from the table. And don't forget Lovinac.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. All four are now indicated. I searched a bit different string and came up with some info on Lovinac! The unit was kept in existence throughout the war after all, relocated to Velebit. Info on that is added as well now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The unit sustained a loss of 20 killed troops Probably better rephrased as "the unit lost 20 troops killed during"
 * Rephrased.
 * sustaining a loss of 11 killed, 39 wounded and two captured troops "sustaining losses of 11 killed, 39 wounded and two captured"
 * Rephrased.
 * Before sending this to FLC, carefully review the FLC criteria. Table formatting is very tricky because they enforce compliance with WP:Access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review and the pointers regarding the FLC. Could you please comment on the Lovinac issue above and perhaps suggest a course of action.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: Interesting article, only a few points that need to be addressed.
 * In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened. Clarify: ethnic tensions between whom?
 * Clarification added.
 * The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated the Croatian Territorial Defence Force's (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance. Clarify: resistance against what?
 * Clarification added. Could you please review the change?
 * Ogulin is overlinked and so is Dalmatia.
 * I found no repetition of the links except in places where WP:REPEATLINK permits so. Could you point out the excessive use please?
 * Otherwise, great article. Best of luck, 23 editor (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I made changes to address your concerns, but could not find the instances of overlinking.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, links follow rules set out by the manual of style. 23 editor (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


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