Talk:Battle of Borovo Selo/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progression[edit]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review[edit]

  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: no external links [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • "The Battle of Borovo Selo of 2 May 1991", suggest "The Battle of Borovo Selo on 2 May 1991..."
    • Missing definite article here: "Immediate cause for the confrontation in the village of Borovo Selo...", consider "The immediate cause for the confrontation in the village of Borovo Selo..."
    • Also missing definite article here: "The unauthorised effort by four Croatian policemen resulted in capture of two of them...", consider instead "The unauthorised effort by four Croatian policemen resulted in the capture of two of them..."
    • Multiple issues here: "The fighting further deteriorated overall situation in Croatia, led to grave accusations between Croats and Serbs who accused each other of overt aggression and of being enemies of their nation." Suggest rewording to something like: "The fighting resulted in a further deterioration of the overall situation in Croatia, leading Croats and Serbs to accuse each other of overt aggression and of being enemies of their nation."
    • "For Croatia, the event was particularly provocative because some of the killed police were mutilated..." consider "For Croatia, the event was provocative because some of the police killed in the incident were subsequently mutilated." (suggest removing "particularly" to ensure balance)
    • Missing definite article here: "Presidency of Yugoslavia met days after the fighting and authorised the JNA..." consider "The Presidency of Yugoslavia met days after the fighting and authorised the JNA..."
    • "... to deploy to the area and prevent conflicts, but skirmishes quickly spread in the region regardless of the intervention." Consider instead: "... to deploy to the area and prevent further conflict, but skirmishes quickly spread in the region regardless of their intervention."
    • "In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened." Where? Consider "In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions in the republic worsened." (or something like that)
      • Reworded the eight items above as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean here: "...confiscated Croatia's Territorial Defence (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance." Resistance or to reduce the chance of conflict? (I have next to no knowledge of this conflict so I might be showing my ignorance here I admit).
      • The point is valid, the background is meant to provide a "crash course" to readers and I admit this might warrant some rewording. The TO weapons were confiscated in areas under Croatian control and transferred to JNA depots or barracks to prevent Croatian authorities from using those. At the same time, TO weapons stored in e.g. Knin area were distributed by the JNA as well as additional weapons provided by the Interior Ministry of Serbia. The moves created a significant imbalance of power before the TO weapons (and more) were captured in the Battle of the Barracks. The confiscation of Croatian (and Slovene) TO weapons was ordered by the JNA HQ in May 1990 as communist rule in the republic(s) appeared certain to end in elections held that month and the JNA anticipated resistance to Yugoslav/JNA rule there. Hoare (source used to back up that claim) says "...to minimize the possibility of resistance". Would you consider changing "... to minimize resistance" currently found in the article to ...to miminize the possibility of resistance following the elections. an improvement here, or another formulation would be more informative?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes the suggested rewording works for me. Thanks for explaining that. Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...policy of pursuing independence of Croatia..." → "...policy of pursuing independence for Croatia..."
    • "...In March 1991, the SAO Krajina authorities backed by Serbian government..." → "...In March 1991, the SAO Krajina authorities backed by the Serbian government..."
    • "In the beginning of 1991, Croatia had no regular army. In an effort to bolster its defence, Croatia doubled police personnel to about 20,000." Consider: "In the beginning of 1991, Croatia had no regular army and in an effort to bolster its defence, it doubled the number of police personnel to about 20,000."
    • "...The most effective part of the force was 3,000-strong special police..." → "...The most effective part of the force was the 3,000-strong special police..."
    • "In 1991, the village of Borovo Selo", Borovo Selo should be wikilinked here
    • This is a bit repetitive: "While the city of Vukovar itself had an ethnically mixed population of 47.2% Croats and 32.2% Serbs, smaller settlements in the area were more homogenous ethnically—14 were predominantly populated by Croats, ten, including Borovo Selo, by Serbs, two by Ruthenians and the remaining two were ethnically mixed." Specifically overuse of the word "ethnically" - think you could probably lose one of them and the sentence still make sense. Consider: "While the city of Vukovar itself had an ethnically mixed population of 47.2% Croats and 32.2% Serbs, smaller settlements in the area were more homogenous—14 were predominantly populated by Croats, ten, including Borovo Selo, by Serbs, two by Ruthenians and the remaining two were ethnically mixed."
    • "In early spring, an agreement was made that Croatian police would not enter Borovo Selo without an explicit consent by local Serb authorities for them to do so." → " In early spring, an agreement was made that Croatian police would not enter Borovo Selo without explicit consent from local Serb authorities to do so."
    • Multiple issues here: "The situation became even more volatile by the end of the month, following 14 April political rally in Borovo Selo." Consider instead: "The situation became more volatile by the end of the month, following a political rally in Borovo Selo on 14 April."
    • Missing definite article here: "...spoke in favour of creation of Greater Serbia." → "...spoke in favour of the creation of Greater Serbia."
    • Remove definite article here: "...complete with an open call for the dissenting Croats to be killed." → "...complete with an open call for dissenting Croats to be killed."
    • "... at request of Borovo Selo militia commander Vukašin Šoškoćanin..." → "... at the request of Borovo Selo militia commander Vukašin Šoškoćanin..."
    • "...Nobody was killed or injured, but the tense situation was made worse..." → "...Nobody was killed or injured, but the already tense situation was made worse..."
    • Remove definite article here: "...a high-ranking official of the Croatia's ruling Croatian Democratic Union at the time." → "...a high-ranking official of Croatia's ruling Croatian Democratic Union at the time."
    • "According to the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, they were on patrol deployed on Dalj–Borovo Selo road..." → "According to the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, the police had been on patrol on the Dalj–Borovo Selo road at the time of the incident." (or something similar if my interpretation of your intent is incorrect)
    • Redundant word here: "...requested Vukovar police station to contact Šoškoćanin regarding the incident...", consider: "... requested Vukovar police station contact Šoškoćanin regarding the incident."
    • "...when the latter confirmed the incident saying the police shot at local population wounding one, but Reihl-Kir failed to secure release of the two captured officers..." → "...when the latter confirmed the incident saying the police had shot at members of the local population, and wounding one, but Reihl-Kir failed to secure release of the two captured officers..."
    • "When the force, consisting of 20 to 30 policemen,[23][19] entered Borovo Selo under white flag, the local milita and the paramilitaries ambushed them." Consider instead: "However, when the force of 20 to 30 policemen entered Borovo Selo under a white flag, the local milita and the paramilitaries ambushed them."
    • "While the reinforcements sent from Osijek via Dalj was stopped at a roadblock...", → "While the reinforcements sent from Osijek via Dalj were stopped at a roadblock..."
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean here: "The outcome of the fighting also reinforced restraint of Croatian leadership from making long-term decisions too quickly." Could you possibly reword it so its more clear?
      • Reworded a bit. Could you please have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was more clear, I made a couple of changes though so pls check I didn't change any meanings unintentionally. Anotherclown (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Serbs referred to the Croats as Ustaše and enemies of Serb people..." → "Serbs referred to the Croats as Ustaše and enemies of the Serb people."
    • Regardless of the JNA deploying in the area, numerous ethnically motivated skirmishes persisted before the Battle of Vukovar." Perhaps add date of Battle of Vukovar for context? (suggestion only).
    • Redundant word here: "...erected a memorial on a public property at the entrance to Borovo Selo..." → "...erected a memorial on public property at the entrance to Borovo Selo..."
    • "...A new plaque was added to the monument in 2012,[34] containing names of 12 killed policemen..." Consider instead "A new plaque was added to the monument in 2012, containing the names of the 12 Croatian policemen killed in the incident..."
    • A few prose issues here: "Vandalism was condemned by local Serb politicians, but they complained that the memorial is offensive to Serb minority and imposing guilt on the entire community because it brands Borovo Selo Serb forces of 1991 as "Serb terrorists"." Consider instead: "Although the vandalism was condemned by local Serb politicians, they complained that the memorial is offensive to the Serb minority and imposes guilt on the entire community because it brands the Serb forces at Borovo Selo in 1991 as "Serb terrorists"."
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All major points appear to be cited using WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR that I could see.
    • Couple of formatting issues with the refs:
      • Grandits, Hannes; Leutloff, Carolin (2003). "Discourses, actors, violence: the organisation of war-escalation in the Krajina region of Croatia 1990–91". In Koehler, Jan; Zürcher, Christoph. Potentials of Disorder: Explaining Conflict and Stability in the Caucasus and in the Former Yugoslavia. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. pp. 23–45. ISBN 9780719062414 - needs title case
      • Ramet, Sabrina P. (2002). Balkan babel: the disintegration of Yugoslavia from the death of Tito to the fall of Milošević. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 9780813339870 - needs title case
      • Are ISSNs available for the news reports cited (e.g. The New York Times) etc?
      • Also publisher and place of publication is missing here, can this also be added?
      • Minor inconsistency with the presentation of ISBNs - one uses hyphens rest do not. Just looking for consistency here.
        • I have no clue how the dashes are supposed to be distributed, so I removed them throughout.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Although short most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • Level of coverage seems appropriate.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • Whilst I don't see any major issues here and think this article does a fairly good job recounting the events in a balanced manner (AFAIK as an editor with no knowledge of this conflict), there are a couple of minor areas which could probably be improved:
      • "Some of the killed police were mutilated, their ears cut, eyes gouged out and throats slit, making the incident particularly provocative." Provocative to whom? Think this needs to be clarified (consider using the same wording as in the lead perhaps).
        • Applied a similar construction as in the lead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "At the time, Tuđman's decision not to retaliate against the JNA was often interpreted as cowardice bordering treason, leading to public criticism and resignation of General Martin Špegelj from the post of the defence minister." I think this might need attribution - who considered it this way?
        • I cannot directly attribute this, except to say that this is claimed by Croatian historian Davor Marijan. In the cited source he says (the work is in English) "It was precisely this policy of avoiding war, which in regions such as Slavonia was often interpreted as a lack of courage and perhaps even cowardice if not treasonous, that gave Croatia its most valuable wartime ally – time, which was acknowledged by the JNA’s Admiral Branko Mamula". All I can say is that the claim is put forward by Marijan. I seem to remember some (not government controlled) media taking this stance, but all of that is now beyond any archive. I amended the text a bit to link this with Marijan now. Could you have another look and suggest a course of action?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks fine to me, that was what I was after. Anotherclown (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • On another note I wonder if we should use quotation marks here:
          • "They were collectively labelled Chetniks, terrorists and enemies of Croatia..." for instance: "They were collectively labelled "Chetniks", "terrorists" and "enemies" of Croatia..."
          • Likewise here: "Similarly, Serbs referred to the Croats as "Ustaše" and "enemies" of the Serb people...
        • Minor nitpick I know but I think you are probably quoting the labels used at the time. Is that right? This would make that clear to (hopefully) avoid any perceived balance issues. Anotherclown (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quotation marks applied as suggested - you're completely right about this one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images look ok to me. All seem to be PD or licenced and have the req'd information.
    • Captions look fine.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • Quite a few prose points, but mostly minor and should be fairly easy to work through. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for picking up the review. I trust I have addressed most of the issues you raised above. I would particularly like to have some feedback on the alleged cowardice issue stemming from Marijan's claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries at all, nearly there. I left a couple of questions above. Also I made a couple of changes myself so pls check you are ok with those, otherwise we can discuss, see here [7] and here [8]. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your changes are just fine, thanks. The quotation marks issue(s) have now been addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Borovo_Selo/GA1&oldid=786794791"