|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
Lead Y
- suggest homes
from in Struga
- and evacuate the Croatian police is evacuate the right word here? Wasn't it more like "ordered out"? If that is the case, drop the "as well" from the following sentence
- Actually, a JNA report on its arrival in Struga explicitly says the removal of the police was the idea of the police itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Croatian authorities
have filed
- All of the above are applied now, except the evacuation issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- what about and, according to the JNA, assist the Croatian police to evacuate.?
- Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BackgroundY
PreludeY
- suggest which had been declared part of the Serbian Autonomous Oblast Krajina (SAO Krajina) by that time.
- wl platoon at first mention
- suggest The new station drew a strong reaction from the SAO Krajina authorities, who issued an ultimatum on the same day the police station was set up, which demanded its removal and threatened to remove it by force unless Croatia complied with their ultimatum.
- if the rebels captured the police station in Glina, their attack was succesful, it's just that they were forced to withdraw. This bit could do with some rewording to reflect the chronology.
- You could drop the "However,"
- suggest In the final days of June, many Serb civilians, especially from Dvor, fled to the area of Bosanski Novi for safety.
- Reworded now. Could you please check Glina-related material now for clarity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TimelineY
- suggest were
a part elements
- Colonel should be colonel
- Following consultations with Vasiljković, they who are "they"? The JNA or rebels?
- how did the Serbs avoid hitting the JNA around the station when they attacked?
- wl sniper
- suggest The advance against Croat-held villages along the Una was also preceded by an hour-long mortar bombardment of the area. More than 250 rounds were fired, commencing on 26 July at 10:00, after which the infantry was ordered to advance.
- bit confused about "special forces" vs "special police". The initial Timeline para talks about 7th Banija Div and special police, then "special forces" are mentioned.
- are the "Croatian combatants" Croatian police or rebels?
- suggest The SAO Krajina plan saw a battalion led by Braco Orlović advancing north from Dvor through the village of Zamlača to approach the village of Struga. Once there, it was to maintain its position and advance gradually if possible.
- suggest and forcing any civilians they found to move to the main road.
- the reference to a technical is too jargonistic. Suggest Approximately 50 civilians were captured in the village, they were then forced to walk in front of an armed vehicle towards Struga, forming a human shield.
- Kozibrod had achieved
- was happening or had happened
- As a consequence, three Croatian policemen deployed in one house were surrounded and subsequently surrendered.
- suggest from Zamlača to the centre of Struga.
- The
technicalarmed vehicle
- heavy resistance encountered in Struga isn't actually supported by the text, what resistance? There was an small ambush, but what else happened?
- Added an overlooked bit. The cited Vajagić's report claims "heavy shooting". I think it is safe to assume that means resistance, but I have reworded it to reflect the report closely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure what at 19:00 refers to, is it the time that the resistance was encountered, or the time Vajagic requested JNA spt?
- that a unit
was had been dispatched
- The report explicitly points to shooting at 19:00 (...u 19,00 sati se dogodila jaka pucnjava na Struzi. -- ...at 19:00 h heavy shooting occurred in Struga.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- to Glina as reinforcements
- Reworded as suggested or clarified, except the issues noted above. Please review the new addition indicated above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AftermathY
- how many wounded Croatian women?
- I have located three sources on the matter so far. The first two are SAO Krajina TO reports - one saying "all wounded Croatian patients" treated there were beaten outside before 100 onlookers, the other saying the same thing but does not mention onlookers, but it says that "patients (women)" were killed. The two reports are found in Rupić, at pages 199 and 211 respectively. The third source is a hard copy of full article by Raguž ("Boj za Bansku Strugu", already used in the article) and it repeats what the first two say, except it adds that two seriously wounded policemen and eight civilians were taken to Dvor - although it does not say how many women were among them - and that all of them were killed, explicitly saying "not just women". I'll reword this to reflect the three sources, but could you please check if I created more confusion in the process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest Fighting in the region flared once more on 7 August
- the policeman captured in Glina? While there is a mention in the lead, the isn't actually any info about the capture of policemen in Glina further up in the body.
- Hm. Actually there is, but I'm aware that this is confusing. The group (16) were captured in the first attack in June.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the Croatian position
- suggest was besieged. Three days later, SAO Krajina forces captured the hill that commanded the town, and the Croatian forces started a breakout from Hrvatska Kostajnica.
- suggest Hrvatska Kostajnica was captured by SAO Krajina forces,
- suggest A total of 67 Croatian troops were captured in the town and shipped to the jail in Glina, but only ten arrived. if that reflects the facts.
- suggest SAO Krajina (and JNA?) forces captured Hrvatska Dubica the same day, and Topusko on 14 September. lost control of is a bit weasely
- suggest Petrinja was captured by
the SAO Krajina forces and the JNA, denying Croatia an important bridgehead held on the south (right) bank of the Kupa River.
- end sentence with in the region. then These attacks comprised the autumn campaign undertaken by the JNA—in the area of Slana and Novi Farkašić on 17–18 October and in the area of Sunja on 2 November.
fifty 50 Croats- when was Dragan charged by Croatia?
- Apparently that happened in 2005. There is this [[1]] article of 23 September 2005 announcing a formal inquiry, and there are
ample sources dating the extradition request to 2005 but also to January 2006 [[2]], which fits nicely with January 2006 arrest. There is also this [[3]] communique from the State Attorney's Office in Šibenik dated 29 November 2005 announcing the formal inquiry and specifying charges (breaches of Geneva Convention). I found no sources on date when the court in Šibenik confirmed the indictment, even though a WP:SYNTH makes it very likely that was December 2005.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I fouond this source [[4]] which appears to (p.4) indicate that the indictment was confirmed on 12 Dec 2005. Croatian legal system works in this way, a State Attorney's Office prepares an indictment and submits it to a court having jurisdiction for confirmation (acceptance), and once the court confirms the indictment it takes legal effect. My question is, is this source acceptable?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the aftermath issues are addressed now, except the above indicated ones where some feedback would be welcome re how to proceed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest the best way to deal with it is According to Australian court documents, on 10 January 2006, the Sibenik County Court ordered that a warrant be issued for Vasiljković's arrest. The offences listed were two alleged war crimes against prisoners of war, and one alleged war crime against the civilian population. In-line attribution "According to Australian court documents" should be enough here. Court documents are primary, especially witness testimony, but in this case, the Australian court has satisfied itself that the Sibenik County Court order for the issue of the warrant occurred on a particular date, so some double-checking has occurred. I think it is quite safe to use. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I tried to blend in the final bit of the sentence referenced to Hogg into the above to clarify that just one of the three counts of the indictment is relevant to this particular event.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
