Talk:Pećanac Chetniks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The overall article is well-written. Here is a list of minor sentence or grammar errors I found.

1. "They were loyal to the German-backed Serbian puppet government and fought against Yugoslav Partisans and the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović" - I noticed the infobox mentioned it operated between 1941-43, so might consider mentioning that in the lead.

2. "a notorious organisation that arbitrarily terrorised Bulgarians in the Štip region" - To avoid confusion consider mention where the "Štip region" was and which part it is of today. For example, you could change the sentence to "a notorious organisation that arbitrarily terrorised Bulgarians in the Štip region, located in what today is Macedonia".

3. By simply naming the second section "Collaboration" the reader might wonder with whom he collaborated with. Considered changing it to "Nazi collaboration" or something that associates it with the occupying force.

4. "in which he portrayed himself as the defender and protector of Serbs and called "on detachments that have been formed without his approval" - The quote should not begin at "on" but at "detachments".

5. "broke ranks to join with the Partisans" - It appears the word "with" should not be included.

6. "Pećanac sent a request to the head of the Serbian puppet government, Milan Nedić for stronger organization, supplies, arms, salary funds, and more" - This overall sentence is fine, but the "for stronger organization" part might cause confusion. Was he requesting help to strengthen his organization or did he need some kind of written permission? The other objects mentioned in his list is things he needed from the government, so the requesting-help-to-strengthen-organization version could be the understanding. If this is supposed to be the understainding, consider tweaking this so it's clarified.

7. "General der Artillerie (General) Paul Bader" - The paragraph text should be changed to "General of Artillery" as that's the proper translation of General der Artillerie.

8. "Paul Bader issued orders giving unit numbers C–39 to C–101 to the Pećanac Chetnik detachments" - This is just a suggestion, but I would suggest adding the word "the" in between "giving" and "unit" just for clarity.

9. "These orders also required the deployment of a German liaison officer with all detachments engaged in operations, and limited their movement outside their assigned area" - By choosing the word "and" instead of "which might cause confusion.

10. "The Germans soon found that Pećanac's units were inefficient, unreliable, and of little military aid to them" - This sentence indicates that the Germans indeed "soon found that Pećanac's units were inefficient, unreliable, and of little military aid to them", but the article has previously mentioned that they were in service between 1941-43. That's almost three years (article does not mention the specific month of 1941 the Chetniks started their collaboration with the Germans) which does not really indicate they "soon" discovered they were inefficient soldiers. If it's because the Germans only had one liaison officer placed with the Chhetniks, consider adding that in. Otherwise, I would remove that "soon" addition.

11. "The Germans and the puppet government commenced disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one was dissolved by the end of 1942" - Like point 8, this is just a suggestion, but I would recommend replacing "and" with "yet" in between "1942" and "all".

12. "His followers were dispersed to other German auxiliary forces, German labour units, and prisoner-of-war camps" - Were they acting as guards at the POW camps or were they actual prisoners. It seems weird the Germans would place a part of the remnants to other guard units and also place some in POW camps. Consider adding a word or two about the POW-sentence so as to avoid confusion.

Addressed all these points, these are my edits. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The sources used in this article is very acceptable and all have ISBN numbers and other text-requirements. Some of the authors are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia even. Nice job on the Harvard references too.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

I'm very satisfied with this articles coverage. It covers background, formation, activity, Axis collaboration, and dissolution.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral with no personal or individual mentions and have had no discussions or disputes regarding the policy on neutrality.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article does not significantly change from day to day (edits or major expansions and improvements made in the face of the GA-nomination will be ignored).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article contains two images (one in lead and one in the "Collaboration" section). For the length of the article, it seems just fine. Both images are public domains and are uploaded and from Commons.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-requirement, and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor issues or suggestions, I'm going to pass it. Excellent job. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much for the review. I will address those comments later today. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • All done, thanks again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)