Talk:Škabrnja massacre/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	in the lead executed seems rather formal for the circumstances. killed would probably be better, same when it is used further down suggest The overall commander of the operation was JNA... were the paras heli-lifted or via fixed wing? I assume not paradropped. suggest and had captured the hamlet of Ambar located on the western approach to Škabrnja by 11:30 suggest dropping "Namely" suggest replacing react to with observe that there had been the the Aftermath section World War II is overlinked
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	a few tweaks needed in the References section: formatting of the Woodward text isbn Rupić needs an isbn (see Worldcat) The Amnesty paper has an oclc (as above)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm not sure about the licensing on the Babic and Martic pics, will have to do some checking and might ask for a second opinion. See Nikki's second opinion below. The rest of the images are fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for seven days for above points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)~~Image rights not conclusively proven. Failing on image licensing without prejudice to removal of offending images. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: could you please have a quick look at the pics of Martic and Babic in this article? I'm not sure about the licensing, given they are drawn from the ICTY. The licensing seems to be based more on the absence of attached restrictions rather than positive evidence that they are PD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence that the images are PD we have to assume that they are copyrighted - in this case, the source presented does not conclusively show that the images are PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Peacemaker67, the nominator, Tomobe03, has not edited on Wikipedia since June 20, and the edits prior to that were on May 12. I think it's unlikely that you'll get a response from that quarter. On the other hand, 23 editor has been active editing the article, and perhaps might be willing to address the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day 23 editor if you want to handle the rest of the remaining points, I'm happy to leave it open for another week. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the remaining points shortly. 23 editor (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All addressed, except heli-lifted vs. fixed-wing. I really don't know. You're going to have to ask Tomobe03. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I have to fail this nom on the basis of image licensing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]