Talk:Lovas killings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Given this has been here over a month and you are such a prolific GAN reviewer, I'll overcome my usual reticence to review 1990's Yugoslav wars articles. Will get started shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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.	Lead suggest "occupation" instead of "unopposed capture", "deployment" and "capture" "through" is used in a uniquely US/American way, I suggest substituting "until" suggest you add that Croatia declared independence on 8 October 1991. suggest "when troops guarding a group of civilians forced them to walk into a minefield at gunpoint and then opened fire on them" "The bodies of the victims were retrieved from a mass grave and ten individual graves in 1997" is out of chronological order, I suggest you put it after "... forced to leave their homes", and following it with "Lovas was rebuilt after the war." suggest you add something to the lead about the decline in population, and also more about the results of the trials. Suggest you add that a group was convicted, but a retrial is underway. Should the Serbian translation of the title be in Cyrillic? Background who defeated the government and when? insert "within the Republic" before "worsened" insert "and" before "parts of the..." This revolt was followed "in January 1991, by..." (if that is correct. Current wording isn't clear). it is pretty important to maintain the continuity re: year, I know you know what year it was, it just isn't clear to readers. How did the JNA come under the control of Milošević? Pretty important. Timeline unnecessary detail re:(consisting of three mechanised brigades, antitank, artillery and air-defence regiments, and an engineers battalion), also garrison locations of brigades. It is reasonable to assume garrison locations were irrelevant at this stage. delete "At that time" you provide the timeframe we've established the 3rd Guards were ZNG, unnecessary pre-position. suggest replacing "spanning" with "between" delete "On the other hand, ", irrelevant, we know what the opposing sides were, also deleted "normally based in Valjevo", again irrelevant, there was a war on need to explain Dusan Silni paramilitaries at first mention in the body. "bombs" I think you mean "grenades" "by the Serb forces and paramilitaries", please clarify who you mean, JNA, TO or paramils? "and one on the way there" if this person was killed on the way there, they weren't forced into the minefield. Needs re-ordering. "By September". What does this mean, prior to November, or up to and including November? Aftermath per lead, the figures do not add up. This section says 78, but lead says 70. This section appears to add another six, plus three, ie 87. So what is the total number? Somewhere in the article, you should point out the religious differences, ie mention that the Croatian Serbs are generally Orthodox, the Croats Catholic and that St Michael's was a Roman Catholic church.
	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.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	suggest alt text on pics (not a GA requirement)
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for above points to be addressed

Thanks for taking up the review. I copyedited the lead as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All standard checks are green. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Regading the number of deaths - The sources I managed to find indicate a total of 70: 22 during the initial assault, 23 more between then and the minefield deaths, 1 on the way to the minefield and 21 in the minefield itself, plus 3 more after that. That's 22+23+1+21+3=70. Regarding the number of exhumed bodies, out of 68 exhumed from the mass grave, 2 were not from Lovas (unfortunately, sources such as this one do not indicate where exactly they were from). A possible "lead" is given in this source (used in the article) which says that out of 9 sets of remains exhumed in Jelaš Forest, only 5 have been identified and 3 out of those were military and that the graves contained remains of residents of Lovas and Tovarnik (a nearby village). I found no similar details on the ten individual graves (regarding possible identification o the bodies buried there), but it appears that at least two out o three burial sites were used to bury not only those killed in Lovas but also some civilians and military killed elsewhere. Now, there appears to be no source directly offering such an analysis, so perhaps it would the best to rephrase the relevant bit and say that the victims were among those buried at these three sites. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to convey this message in the aftermath section - Could you please take a look and see if I managed or fumbled that? I also edited the article to address your concerns raised in the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed that one, thanks for pointing that out - should be reodered chronologically now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, good article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)