Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Jackal


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

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Jackal

 * Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and benefited from incremental improvements related to the GAR and subsequent editing (based on similar article ACRs). Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm not sure whether this is AmEng or BritEng ... you have "preempt","reorganized", "reorganised", and "favourable".
 * It was meant as British English. Fixed the two cited instances of AE spelling, but I'll have another look for more.
 * "Position of the border in the region leaves a 2 to 10 kilometres (1.2 to 6.2 miles) wide coastal strip of Croatian soil in the area.": I don't follow the present tense, or what the sentence is saying.
 * Apparently that turned out to be very clumsy. I meant to say that the region (around Dubrovnik) is (both now and was back in 1992) a very narrow coastal strip.
 * Significantly trimmed and rephrased to clarify.
 * "The northward push through Bivolje Brdo, Pijesci and Gubavica, reaching the southern approaches to Mostar on 14 June.": no verb
 * Changed "reaching" to "reached.
 * "follow up": follow-up
 * Amended.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I tried to address the issues raised above, and I'll check the prose for any American English spellings left over. Could you have another look at the confusing sentence referred to in the item 2 above to see if it is any better now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

I did the GA review for this article, and note only minor changes have been made since then. Reviewing those changes and looking at the article again with "fresh eyes", I have the following comments to make: That's my review done. Zawed (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The OoB mentions the various brigades, but the "Timeline section" only refers to the movements of the 4th Guards Brigade. Is there any information available on the movements/actions of the other brigades? Is there any casualty information available? If possible, I would to see the "Timeline" section expanded a little given it is effectively the topic of the article (most of which is otherwise background).
 * There's very little info available, but I found a source for some of the 156th Bde movements. I'll add those shortly - I'll recheck what can be found on other individual units before I add the material.
 * Added some info.
 * "...HV/HVO were able to advance quickly in both of the planned directions." This doesn't flow well to my eyes at least. I suggest: "...HV/HVO were able to move forward quickly along their planned line of advance."
 * Yes, that's better. Amended as suggested.
 * "...capturing the villages of Varda, Kruševo, Jasenica, Slipčići and Orlovac Mountain." Is Orlovac Mountain the name of the village or should it be "...capturing the villages of Varda, Kruševo, Jasenica, Slipčići as well as the Orlovac Mountain."
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you for taking time to review the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments:
 * "The HV later reestablished " --> "The HV later re-established";
 * Fixed.
 * "29 February–1 March 1992" (this probably should be a spaced endash as the two elements have spaces;
 * Added.
 * in the Footnotes there is a red harv error relating to "Jutarnji list 6 December 2012" (If you go to the references, it seems to relate to the News reports where there is an error identified, probably around the date (16 Decemeber or 6 December);
 * Indeed. The ref was used to support claim about CO of the Herzegovina Corps. The ref carried erroneous date of 16 Dec instead of 6 Dec. Fixed now.
 * is there anything that can be said of casualties on either side?
 * Unfortunately nothing that is reliably sourced. No amount of searching for sources turns up anything useful - not even "light" or "heavy", let alone a specific figure.
 * No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * what were Anton Tus and Radtko Mladic's roles in the battle? Currently they are listed in the infobox as commanders/leaders, but there is no mention of them in the body of the article;
 * Not much. They were chiefs of respective general staffs (HV/VRS). Do you think the box would be better off without them listed there?
 * My advice would be to remove them from the infobox if they do not warrant mention in the article, otherwise there is no context and technically they would be uncited. It's a minor point, though, so I will leave it up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed them both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Battle of the barracks" --> "Battle of the Barracks"?
 * Fixed.
 * in the References, the books probably don't need retrieved dates (this is, at least, the advice I've seen at FAC);
 * Fixed.
 * in the References, are there page numbers for the Bgelajac & Zunec contribution to Ingrao and Emmert's work? (It appears to be a chapter contribution, but I could be wrong);
 * Specified.
 * image licencing and referencing seems fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time to review this nomination. I think I managed to resolve the issues you brought forward, except I could not find any reliable (or otherwise) sources on casualties for now. Also there's the issue of the two commanders where I'd prefer to receive your feedback before I remove them from the box or add anything in that respect to the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


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