Talk:June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• 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: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: A few of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement - suggestion only).
  • have added alt text to the maps, it is not showing up on the checker yet, might be using a cached copy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: one duplicate link to be removed:
  • done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "On 27 May, 6 officers and 300 gendarmes..." should "6" be "six" per WP:MOSNUM?
    • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures per MOS:NUMERAL
  • "Main Ustaše Headquarters was tasked..." is "Main Ustaše Headquarters" a proper noun? Or should the sentence start like this: "The main Ustaše headquarters was tasked..."?
    • No, Main Ustase Heaquarters is a proper noun, it was the Ustase equivalent of OKW, for example.
  • "...Herzegovina comprised 4 per cent Croats, 28 per cent Muslims...", should this be "four per cent" per WP:MOSNUM?
    • See above.
  • Repetitive language "...by vilifying the Serb population, who, according to Tomasevich, comprised around 75 per cent of the population...", specifically "population" twice in the same sentence, I wonder if it might be possible to reword? (suggestion only)
    • reworded.
  • "... in Trebinje shot nine Serbs and arrested another fifteen..." should this be 15 per WP:MOSNUM
    • See above.
  • Is there some missing punctuation here: "On 1 June, the residents of the village of Donji Drežanj near Nevesinje refused to co-operate...", specifically should their be a pair comma around "near Nevesinje"?
    • done.
  • "In response, the Ustaše killed a large number of Serbs and burned their homes..." do we know how many were killed? "a large number" seems subjective and might be better expressed as a figure if it exists.
    • We don't, and Marijan doesn't consider the source reliable, I've removed "large", for the reasons you state.
  • "On the afternoon of 3 June..." I wonder if something like "That afternoon..." might work better as you have already given the date in the previous sentence? (suggestion only)
    • Good point, done.
  • Repetitive prose here: "during which the Ustaše suffered several casualties, the Ustaše burned down four villages..." specifically "the Ustase" twice.
    • Have reworded, see what you think.
  • Prose seems a little repetitive here too: "... the Poglavnik of the NDH, Ante Pavelić issued orders that threatened that anyone ...", wonder if this might work better: "... the Poglavnik of the NDH, Ante Pavelić issued orders which threatened that anyone..." (suggestion only)
    • done.
  • This seems a little unclear to me: "...but the 19 Ustaše hostages were killed instead..." was this 19 Ustase that were killed or 19 hostages held by the Ustase that were killed?
    • clarified, it was the hostages held by the Ustase.
  • Not sure this is a sentence: "South of Bileća, rebels destroyed the gendarmerie post in a village, killed seven gendarmes...", would it work better as: "South of Bileća, rebels destroyed the gendarmerie post in a village, killing seven gendarmes..."
    • Agree, done.
  • Typo here: "By 7 July, NDH forces had regained full control over the all towns and transport routes..." specifically "the all towns"...
    • fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• 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 all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions seem ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall, this article is in good shape just some prose and minor MOS issues to deal with. More than happy to discuss anything you disagree with. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Happy with those changes / responses. Passing now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)