Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pećanac Chetniks


 * 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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Pećanac Chetniks

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

This organisation was a collaborationist irregular force in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during 1941–1943. Its leader, Kosta Pećanac, was a famous Chetnik leader during the Balkan Wars and World War I. The article on Pećanac himself was one of the first articles I developed to FA back in 2013. This article passed GAN in late 2014 and I have recently made some tweaks to bring it up to the A-Class criteria. All suggestions for its improvement will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments : G'day, good work as usual. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * in the infobox: "1941–1943" --> "1941–43" per WP:DATERANGE
 * irregular caps: " Association against Bulgarian Bandits" --> " Association Against Bulgarian Bandits";
 * "Pećanac was requested by the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy to prepare for guerrilla operations" --> "...the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy requested that Pećanac prepare for guerrilla operations..."?
 * "...reputation he had developed in the Balkan Wars and World War I." I wonder if a little bit more of Pećanac's previous service could be briefly mentioned in the Background?
 * "Nothing is known of Pećanac's activities..." --> "Nothing is recorded of Pećanac's activities"?
 * in the References is there a page range that can be provided for the Newman chapter within the Gerwarth and Horne book?
 * in the References: "Cornell UP" --> "Cornell University Press"
 * Thanks for the review Rupert. All done (there are my edits), just check the new first para of the Background section for more info on what he got up to earlier. Good pick-up BTW, reading it now, I can't work out how I thought that would be adequate... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look good. I made a couple of minor tweaks; please check you are happy with those and feel free to adjust if not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Formation and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always, Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc (no action req'd).
 * Slightly repetitive prose here: "...disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one had been dissolved by the end of 1942..." (specifically 2 x 1942). Consider something like: "...disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one had been dissolved by the end of the year." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
 * Otherwise this article is in good shape and nothing really stood out as being an issue to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ac, made the suggested tweak. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Background: Could we have a bracketed translation of "vojvoda"? More of a suggestion on my part than a requirement.
 * Formation section: "At this time and for a considerable time after,..."; the close repeated usage of "time". Suggest replacing the second usage with "period"
 * Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces section: aren't headings supposed to be title case?
 * Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces section: maybe link: Serbian Gendarmerie (or at least the Gendarmerie).
 * Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces: "He also recommended that Mihailović's detachments disband and join his detachments."; close repeated use of "detachments".
 * Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces: "...being paid and supplied by the Serbian Gendarmerie Command." I initially thought this was another organisation to the Serbian Gendarmerie previously mentioned but it is actually the same isn't it? If so, maybe delete "Command" to avoid confusion.
 * Thanks for the review, all done. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, have added my support now. Congrats on the admin-ship as well. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I think all we are waiting on now is an image review. I had a quick look, but to be honest it was beyond my expertise. would you mind taking a quick look and letting us know your thoughts? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The two appear to be problematic - since they are hosted on Commons, they need to be PD in both the US and their country of origin. It's not clear to me on what basis the US Holocaust Museum believes they are PD and where. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, I've sorted out the document one, as the local copyright expired in 1994 it is also PD in the US. Looking for a better license for the other one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've resorted to a NFR for the infobox image. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (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.