Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Croatian War of Independence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No consensus to promote EyeSerene^talk 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has been recently listed as GA with no major objections and since I believe that all five A-class criteria are either met or reasonably close to warrant a serious review. Tomobe03 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Remarks by GregorB

Here is a review of the article. First, a disclaimer: this review was originally not meant to be submitted here, so it was not written with A-class (or any other) formal criteria in mind. Please, take it at face falue. Needless to say, other editors are by all means encouraged to post their own comments and opinions.

Intro

1. The ICTY also condemned a "widespread and systematic... This sentence seems disconnected with the rest of the paragraph, and it is unclear what "also" refers to. Perhaps the quote should be incorporated in the following paragraph, say after thousands of refugees.

 Done I opted not to move the sentence as it is related to the Greater Serbia concept introduced into the article in the previous sentence. Instead I reworded the sentence in the lead to make it less awkward as there is no need to carry the entire quote in the sentence as the quote is already in the main text (ICTY section).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This was primarily a flow problem. Looks good to me now. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. ICTY needs to be expanded on the first use. UNPROFOR likewise.

 Done Ditto for UNTAES.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) is now a redirect. Should be fixed/clarified in some way.

 Done Resolved redirect to the appropriate section of the article to which that used to redirect, and changed "Yugoslav Republic of Croatia" to "Republic of Croatia, a constituent republic of..." to reduce possibility of confusion and provide some context even without proceeding down the wikilink.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. GregorB (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Two things that might be spelled out in the intro: the war damage figure(s) and the exact area that was held by the RSK. Regarding the latter: the article says "approximately 30 percent"; IIRC, the figure was around 29%. Oddly, according to this, the total area was 13,913 km², which would be significantly less than 29%.

Believe it or not, both figures are correct. I suppose the above source and 13,913 km2 figure for RSK area size can be accepted as reliable. Starting from there, add 270 km2 and 1440 km2 that were once occupied, but recaptured by HV in late 1991 in Otkos 10 and Orkan 91, and another 684 km2 occupied near Dubrovnik (this figure is approximate, one half of Dubrovnik Diocese is reported to have been occupied - and 1368 km2 is area size of the diocese). Granted, the three figures are approximate, but even the RSK reported size may or may not comprise further 90 km2 retaken by the HV in Miljevci Plateau. If all of these (including Miljevci) are added up, one gets 16,397 km2 or 28.97%. Considering possible (or even likely) inaccuracies I'd say usage of "approximately 29%" is fair. Simply said, the discrepancies stem from Dubrovnik hinterland not being included in the RSK and the W Slavonia occupation in 1991. --- In short, I'll attempt to distill something meaningful out of this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done as suggested, specifying only RSK 1992 size in the lead and specifying details in the main article text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This discrepancy is resolved then. However, my comment regarding the exact area was a general one, not specifically related to the intro itself. This means that while the article body should go for exact figure, an approximate one would still be good enough for the intro. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall, the intro is very good, I'd even say excellent.

"Background"

1. The bit about the formation of political parties in 1989 should probably precede the part about the actual elections in 1990.

 Done That particular area was reorganized earlier today exactly in this way. I also think it's better that way.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Serb Democratic Party is not mentioned at all in the article. It might be introduced in this section.

 Done The Serb Democratic Party is now mentioned.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Serbs occupied a disproportionate number of state posts throughout Yugoslavia, including in Croatia. The sentence is disconnected with the rest, should be moved elsewhere or removed altogether.

 Done Actually I kept the sentence - sort of. The idea was to provide a context - to illustrate perception of the Serbs in Croatia. The sentence has been reworded, reorganized and expanded a little bit, with an appropriate citation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is much better. (Again, this was a flow rather than a content problem.) Also, from League of Communists of Croatia: The Serb influence was indeed disproportionate at times. In 1989, 30% of the members of the Croatian League of Communists were Serbs, while their overall percentage in the republic was less than 13%. Might be true, but is unfortunately unsourced. GregorB (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Important factors in Croatia's preservation of its pre-war borders were... This entire paragraph seems out of place. I'd say it belongs to one of the earlier sections.

Actually, no, but it should not be in this exact spot either. Plus it's written virtually backwards. I'm on it now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I reorganized the paragraph to center on the Badinter Commission, which was pivotal for EEC recognition of Croatia and dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia, and moved the paragraph to proper location (chronologically) - the second half of 1991 when the Commission did bulk of its work. Additionally I provided an extra reference establishing importance of the 1974 constitution to the commission's decision making.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Like some other changes discussed here, this is not merely a fix, but rather a substantial improvement. GregorB (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The JNA was unable to advance as far as planned due to Croatian resistance and mobilization problems. Uncited and IMO only partly true. Note that the source for the map is CIA. Its origin may be the infamous S-2 war plan, but I don't think JNA ever actually thought of implementing it in its entirety because that would have made no sense (see my remark about Slovenia below). It is somewhat dubious whether the map corresponds to anything that was actually planned.

I'd like to try and break this down a bit and ask you for some feedback:

• The map you refer to was made by the CIA. It was published in book "Balkan Battlegrounds" which I cannot find online or offline. Corps referenced by the map are accurately located but that's about it. However, looking at two long arrows stretching from general area of Požega to Križevci (or thereabout) the map appears to be an amalgamation of actual JNA movements and general assumptions on possibly planned movements. I would say the map may be used, at best, as an illustration of what the US analysts thought the JNA intended at one time or another.
• Claim that the JNA was unable to advance... is somewhat awkward but fairly obvious - any army advance (if attempted and/or planned) is hindered by its opponent's resistance and supply problems (food, fuel, munitions or as in this case, manpower). Validity of the claim may, IMO, be questionable only in terms of attempts/plans of the JNA to advance further.
• In that respect, the article says that JNA tried to "occupy the whole of Croatia". The claim is supported by two sources, including a book by Kadijević (federal defense secretary) and Bjelajac, Žunec, Boduszynski, Draschtak, Graovac, Kent, Malli, Pavlović, Vuić 2009, p. 241. The latter specifies that JNA tried to gain approval for "operation “Shield” designed to disarm the Croatian military organization and put its leaders on trial" and declaration of state of emergency, however the divided presidency could not act. This serves to verify that JNA did in fact plan to capture at least a substantial part of Croatia, presumably including Zagreb (since the plan entailed capture and trial of Croatian leadership). The divided federal presidency indeed failed to grant approval to the JNA, but it also ostensibly failed to hold it back. Furthermore the JNA operated quite well without any approval by the presidency - getting its supplies and personnel from Serbia, as confirmed by reliable sources cited in the article.
• It is also true that at one point Serb/JNA objectives changed, as evidenced by Jović in his diary and in his testimony to the ICTY. (also referenced in the article) In testimony (cited) he says "The main JNA forces shall be grouped on Karlovac-Plitvice [Lakes] line to the West; Baranja, Osijek, Vinkovci - Sava [River] to the East and Neretva [River] in the South. In that way all territories inhabited by Serbs shall be covered until the final resolution, that is until the people freely decides in a referendum." These too contain geographical references which indicate that even those scaled down objectives were not met - Neretva River and Sava River.
• Taking into consideration the above I conclude that the CIA map is quite vague but it may be close to an early JNA plan (although that is impossible to confirm) and I also conclude that the JNA did in fact have a plan to overthrow the Croatian leadership by means of a military action and that both that plan and the scaled down plan for occupation of a more or less specific area in Croatia was partially hindered, i.e. that the JNA did not advance as far as it wanted to (ostensibly due to resistance and personnel issues).

 Done On another thought, even though the above is, IMO, logical and valid reasoning, that would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS so I've changed the caption where the claim is made to what is actually communicated by the source (CIA book/map).--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very detailed and well thought-out analysis. I think we are in full agreement now. It boils down to this: 1) the CIA map is in itself not problematic as a source, if properly introduced, 2) JNA indeed had a radical plan in the early days, 3) it is bit risky to "connect the dots" between points 1) and 2) due to WP:SYNTH. The caption now reflects this, so the issue is indeed settled. GregorB (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• The S-2 plan was one of JNA strategic plans for defense of the SFRY. The S-2 was designed to combat a NATO invasion from the North and from the South. (The S-1 was designed to fight a Warsaw Pact invasion.) While it could be argued that it was used to combat Slovenia and/or Croatia, it seems highly dubious since it entailed support of Slovene/Croatian TOs and a technically/technologically superior adversary, frontline bases in Maribor, Varaždin, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Jastrebarsko etc. all of which obviously did not apply in 1991.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall, this is a longish section; initially I thought it was too long, but I'd say now that it's very important to provide proper context. It is also difficult to write for the same reason. I'd also rate it as very good. What is a bit lacking for my taste: the role of the media, the impact of events such as the Petrova Gora rally (generally underrated now, while the Gazimestan speech is generally somewhat overrated IMO), open talk of independence, and finally the HDZ's own nationalist and far right leanings (c.f. Račan's "dangerous intentions" remark). On the other hand, this section really shouldn't be much longer than it is, and it is neither possible nor desirable to go into greater detail here.

 Done Added Petrova gora rally, hope it is enough because it really is a long section already.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that reordering the content, and adding info about the SDS and the rally is a major improvement to this section. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But translation of Petrova Gora is not really necessary here... GregorB (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's gone.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Military forces"

1. No objections here, a solid overview. More information on tactics would be useful (not necessarily in this section).

"1991"

1. In July, in an attempt to salvage what remained of Yugoslavia... This seems to imply that the JNA attempted to subdue Slovenia, failed, then turned to Croatia as a some sort of "substitute". This would be a misinterpretation: JNA simply withdrew from Slovenia once the entire operation was recognized as pointless. The reasoning was as follows: the Slovenians want to leave Yugoslavia, so let them go; we'll focus on those who don't want to leave, i.e. the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a strategic decision rather than an outright failure. (And no, I don't have a source for that.)

 Done ... at least I think so. Earlier today I expanded this bit and added a reference for the planning or at least decision making involved (Jović diary).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The Jović diary bit is a bonus. GregorB (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Serbs over-represented in the armed forces - same fact is essentially reported twice, in different ways (1981 and 1990). The 1990 figures seem both more relevant and provide better context (if Serbs were, say, 5% of the population, over-representation would probably not have mattered much), so I'd say cut out the 1981 figures.

 Done Moved the paragraph to "Military forces" as the info really belongs there, trimmed down the 1981 info substantially, simply observing that there was a similar situation back then. Added reference to instruction to eliminate Slovenes/Croats from the JNA given prior to the war in Slovenia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. GregorB (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. In August 1991, the border city of Vukovar came under attack and the Battle of Vukovar began. Serbian troops eventually completely surrounded the city. The first sentence is a bit of an oversimplification. Still, I'm not sure if going into details would help either.

Since there already is a wikilinked article on Battle of Vukovar, I feel there is sufficient information here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. GregorB (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Some inconsistencies in date formatting (month-first, day-first).

 Done I think I got all of them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"1992"

1. No particular objections here.

"1993"

1. the successful Operation Medak pocket in 1993 caused sharp reactions of countries and organizations that had anti-Croatian and pro-Serb attitude during the war. Citation? It is true that Croatia was criticized, but that's (ostensibly) because it violated the cease fire agreement. Also, Medak pocket was (again, ostensibly) targeted for its artillery which had been shelling Gospić. Whether my interpretations here are correct (and relevant) or not, context could definitely be improved.

Indeed I seem to be unable to find a reliable source to support the assertion made in the article. I'll search some more and see what comes up - and then rewrite the passage if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the entire subsection was somehow wanting. I rewrote some of it and reorganized most remaining text in the subsection - I think only the last paragraph was left as it was.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Two problems remain: 1) "marred by war crimes" is followed by "the alleged crimes", a bit of a non sequitur (if it's reasonably clear that war crimes actually took place, and I'd say that it is, then I guess "alleged" might as well be dropped; what was alleged was their guilt), and 2) one should take into account that the Croatian-Canadian battle is IIRC still flatly denied by the HV, and the article itself does not give a definite answer. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed... working on that one!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I provided info and sources for Croatian (and apparently UN) interpretation of the events with sources. Hope that turns out ok.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... (I really hate being a nuisance... :-) ) The "alleged" bit is still there. (But not in the same section!) Also, while the section's content is fine, there is perhaps a WP:SS/WP:DETAIL violation now, especially since the article size might be close to becoming a concern. Simply saying that one side claims there was a battle while the other denies it should probably be enough here. GregorB (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Got the other "allegation"... I'll distill that extra info into something smaller and equally useful. As for article size, prose is still below 80K. Admittedly entire article is much larger, but still far below 400K cautioned by WP:SIZE. Still, I agree that it should not be expanded beyond reason. There's no problem about what you call "being a nuisance" - I figure the whole point of any serious review is to have other people detect what could be improved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the details as discussed, those would probably be better off in the article on the battle itself anyway. Do you think this setup could work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just right. GregorB (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll mark this one as  Done as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Lučko rocket attack seems fairly unimportant (no fatalities, minor damage). E.g. the attack on Zagreb TV Tower in 1991 might be seen as more important, but is not mentioned.

 Done Indeed it is relatively minor. Removed Lučko attack from the section and added Lučko to the list of attacked towns, moving the reference accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"1994"

1. The war was originally fought between HVO and Croatian volunteer troops. I believe they fought the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than amongst themselves.

 Done per suggestion, except they fought Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1. IIRC, the guard brigades were manned by professional soldiers, while the other units used mobilized personnel. If sourced, might be important to mention.

 Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"1995"

1. serb held - should read "Serb-held".

 Done Kebeta (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. OK otherwise.

 Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Type and name of the war"

1. euphemism - this does not seem to be supported by the sources.

My point was that calling a war (small or large) a conflict is use of euphemism by definition. The source for such a use is this and it is referenced at the end of that particular sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My remark about the sourcing does not concern the use of the word "conflict", but rather calling such a use a "euphemism". This is what the source apparently does not support. Strictly speaking, calling the war a "conflict" is not incorrect, since war is by definition a kind of conflict. In fact, Bjelajac, Žunec et al. also refer to it as a "conflict" several times in their paper, although, of course, they primarily describe it as a "war". While describing this war exclusively as a "conflict" by all means might be considered euphemistic, I don't see real evidence of such use. The NYT source is not helpful in this respect because it is dated June 1991, still some months short of the first large-scale battles and the first substantial casualties, i.e. back then the word "war" may have still legitimately felt too strong for some. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I'll look into that shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the "euphemism" seems to serve no purpose at all other than draining good will and energy away from reviewers and editors alike, I thought it best be removed and marked  Done as moot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Since neither Croatia or Yugoslavia declared war on each other, a prevailing view in Serbia was that it was a civil war between Croats and Serbs in Croatia. Both facts are true (#1 - the war wasn't declared, #2 - the Serbs see it as a civil war), but the inference seems faulty to me. Unreferenced.

This is changed now and references are added, could you please have another look at this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Better, but still not completely fixed. Declaration of war (or lack thereof) is IMO orthogonal to the issue of the war being international or not. I fail to see how the (true and referenced) fact that the war was not declared might lead to any conclusions - one way or the other - about its character in this respect. (Well, at least in the absence of sources that make explicit inferences of the sort.) "War not declared" bit might simply be dropped without any loss of context. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right and I'm working on this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved the non-declared nature of the war to the end of the subsection as it is not as important as international/internal characterization. Further referenced Serbian position on internal war. Your objection on non-declaration of the war as a cause for characterization of the conflict as internal was spot on: The non-declaration by Serbia/Yugoslavia is an ipso facto consequence of the view that the war is internal - those are not declared by default. In that respect provided info why Croatia (Tuđman) never declared the war and reference to support the claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After another look, this seems decent to me now, so I am tempted to consider it  Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And indeed it is... GregorB (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1. So the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia should be considered international as from 8 October 1991 because the independence of these two States was definite on that date. Here, the ICTY may not be fully reliable as a source because it is apparently in a conflict of interest: if I'm not mistaken, only international conflicts are within their jurisdiction, so ruling otherwise would be tantamount to declaring themselves lacking jurisdiction. I'm not faulting the article on this point, since this is clearly presented as ICTY's viewpoint, but still - prominent display with two big blue quote boxes...

ICTY is not barred from any type of conflicts internal or international. They are only limited to prosecuting natural persons - I've also added a reference to their Statute which says so, so I don't think we have a conflicting interest there. Besides, another source was added to support the claim. As far as big blue quote boxes are concerned, I moved one of those (Tadić case) to a quote parameter of the existing reference. I'm inclined to consider this  Done unless I missed something.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the ICTY's jurisdiction is indeed not limited by the type of the conflict (do you have a source for that?), then there's no conflict of interest, and my remark would not be valid. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do: it's here and it is referenced in the section on ICTY.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Article 5 of the Statute: "The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed in armed conflict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any civilian population". Therefore, my point was not valid. GregorB (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Casualties and refugees"

1. Also disabled people. PTSD might be mentioned too in this context. No objections otherwise.

 Done ...at least for Croatia. I seem to be unable to trace a reliable source for similar information on Serb casualties at this time that could be reliably said to be related to Croatian War of Independence alone. I suspect some of the 3,500+3,500 specified here are related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, some to Kosovo and an unidentified portion to Croatia. Furthermore there's no way to tell what type of disabilities does that figure include. I'll keep on searching, maybe something turns up yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, even without the details. It would be good to have the number and status of disabled people on the Serb side, but this is a complete mystery to me, I don't think I've ever seen any media coverage of it. GregorB (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Wartime damage and minefields"

1. I'd expect a seealso link to Minefields in Croatia, even if it's linked in the paragraph.

 Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Wartime damage - just direct, or indirect too? (Likely the former, the figures seem low.) Info on methodology would be useful.

 Done ...well sort of. I provided info on what comprises the figures specified. Additionally military spending was described in proportion to overall government spending.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Quadrillion now appears as a disambiguation page, and should be fixed...maybe to de-link it.... :-) Kebeta (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the tip, I'd like to keep the link, as I honestly expect that people are generally unsure exactly how many zeros are there in the quadrillion (and to make sure that it is not a zillion). I looked at the page and never realized it was a disambiguation page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"War crimes and the ICTY"

1. the Croatian government reportedly funded a covert unit - does the source support that? A (dishonorable) mention of Branimir Glavaš would provide more solid evidence for government involvement in general.

The claim you referred to indeed was not supported by any source. I suppose that the government did fund the unit, after all it was (as confirmed by cited sources) a reserve unit of the ministry of interior, and those are normally funded by governments. On the other hand, that's WP:SYNTHESIS so I removed the claim and left the info supported by the sources for readers to draw this or another conclusion. The section on war crimes is now reorganized a bit, additional sources are added to support hitherto unsupported claims and information on Norac sentence, Ademi acquittal and Bobetko exemption (health) is added and referenced. Likewise Glavaš is now briefly mentioned as important instance of national judiciary processing high ranking officials (MPs for that matter).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. One minor thing: Glavaš is a former MP now, but he was still an incumbent MP when he was convicted. GregorB (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the tip - that's a major difference in circumstances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Serbia's role"

1. During the war - I think this section's content is best incorporated in the preceding sections. In this case, the rest of the section would need to be reorganized too.

That is certainly possible - the second subsection could stand on its own as a section called "Croatia-Serbia relations after the war" or something along those lines. I admit the proposition carries a benefit of a shorter article with no loss of content, in fact I'm inclined to accept it. However, I'd like to keep the section like this at least for a short while, to wait and see what other reviewers think of this idea.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is one point I disagree. It would go hand in hand with hidding any involvement of Serbia in the war. The complaint here is baseless. We could simply have two sections: "Serbia's role in the war" and "Situation after the war".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any possibility that even a casual reader of the lead, let alone the remaining text (apart from this particular section) would be in doubt that Serbia had been funding, manning (at least in part) and otherwise supporting JNA/RSK troops let alone "somehow involved". Still I'd like to have other reviewers feedback on this one before committing to any course of action (or inaction per WP:BROKE).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I say keep it. Don't even understand why it was brought up here, anyway.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to call it a day regarding the comments here and continue tomorrow, but let me just respond to this...

As Tomobe duly noted, it is not as if Serbia's involvement is a minor issue not otherwise covered here. It spans from the 1980s, through more or less every phase of the war, virtually into present day (recent extradition requests, as seen in the news). I don't think I'd exaggerate much if I'd say that it's one of the defining characteristics of this war, and I don't think that the article exactly makes it a secret.

First and foremost, I see this as more of a style and exposition issue, rather than a content issue. Some subjects are best covered in separate sections - a good example is "Type and name of the war". It is simply my opinion that the role of Serbia is best described concurrently with chronological description of the events, and that's precisely because it is not a some kind of a one-off issue.

I'd definitely agree with Tomobe that the final prose section of the article should be something along the lines of "aftermath of the war extended to the present day", which is more or less Croatia-Serbia relations: reconciliation (or lack thereof), lawsuits, war crimes trials, missing persons search, integration processes (such as Partnership for Peace), and what have you, this is just off the top of my head.

However, I'm aware this may turn into a major rewrite, affecting many parts of the article, so it is definitely wise to wait and hear other comments before making substantial changes. GregorB (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left you a comment on article's talk page (during discussion about Infobox) regerding this. See what do you think. Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... Serbia had a role in the war (regardless of how one understands what "Serbia" and "role" mean), but whether it was a belligerent or not is a tricky question. My remark - like some other remarks in this review - did not address the content, but its exposition. I don't think that keeping the section vs killing the section (and distributing its content) would lead to readers drawing different conclusions regarding the role of Serbia. Anyway, I'm pleased with the changes implemented since my original remarks were submitted, so I'd say this point is moot now. GregorB (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Wartime damage" and "Casualties and refugees" are also mentioned in the article, and yet they both have their own stand-alone section. Likewise, Serbia's politicians are still shy to admit that the country was involved in the war, probably due to fears of war reparations, thus it's there to point it out. An average reader will definitely not read the whole article, but only scroll down to the section where Serbia's role is mentioned and summed up. I'm sure you can economize somewhere else.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding those two sections: they summarize the subject and provide figures and aftermath, so they make sense here. Using a separate section just for the purpose of driving a point home is probably not a good idea. (Of course, I'm not saying that was the original idea here.) GregorB (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is also there to summarize and provide an aftermath. So please drop it and let's all be friends again.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a room to improve this subsection (regardless whether it's contents are eventually moved or not) so I'll do that first. That should not be a major effort, and when it's done, maybe we'll be able to "have our cake and eat it too".--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I reorganized the subsection, distilled the information already there and related information in the remaining text to provide a usable summary (for those readers going after this aspect only) with additional information on media role in this respect. I believe this setup might be alright since it, IMO, justifies a summary such as this one. If that's OK, I'd consider this  Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections. Great job!--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say I like the end result... It is a summary now, looks good, and breaking it up would not do any good. I'd like to suggest a following reordering, though: 1) Move "During the war" section under the "Course of the war" level 1 section (possibly retitled as "Serbia's role in the war"; say, before or after "Type and name of the war"), because it does not actually belong to the aftermath, 2) Make "After the war" a level 1 section (and possibly retitle). GregorB (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to hurry such a move. The section (both subsections) provide a summary on Serbia-Croatia war related "relations" and postwar relations (broadly) so they complement each other nicely. Furthermore, being a proper summary, this place seems (at least to me) as good as any other. Finally I'm not sure the article would benefit significantly from the move (WP:BROKE). Anyway I'm not sold on any of these points, but I'd rather have the whole section sit like this for a little while just to let it sink in better. Maybe we can revisit this issue in a couple weeks to see if we like this setup or should those be moved after all? (Besides, I hope other reviewers will read this and maybe suggest something new)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

1. "In media" sounds better as a section title.
2. No references. The worst example is "Truth (director unknown)" - can't even be googled to verify.
3. One notable documentary that is missing is Oluja nad Krajinom - even discussed by the Croatian parliament (see source below).

 Done Added references to the movies I found (Including "Storm Above the Krajina"), others were removed.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Final remarks

While this is not to be construed as a some kind formal review (a "replacement" for a GA review in particular), I believe that the article roughly meets the GA criteria, despite some smaller-scale issues. Overall, it is well-referenced (albeit with occasional unreferenced claims throughout that need to be fixed - more than just the ones listed above!) and neutral in tone (in part due to a good choice of sources). I'd rate it high in both scope and focus, despite minor issues in this respect, described above. I believe that the initial phase of the war (March 1991 - January 1992) might still be covered more comprehensively, because - as the article points out - most casualties and war damage fall into that period.

Spelling and grammar seem to be reasonably good, but in this area I'll defer to what the native speakers say. A copyedit might be useful - not just spelling and grammar, but MoS stuff too (e.g. dashes). Editing for better flow is definitely needed.

The article was copyedited by WP:GOCE prior to the GA nomination, but I agree that substantial changes were made in the meantime to warrant another copyedit. I plan to request one after issues brought up by this review are addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to recommend the following high-quality source. It might be particularly useful for strengthening some less-developed aspects of the article (a general overview of military tactics, to name one).

• Rat u Hrvatskoj, 1991-1995.
  • http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article5669 (in Croatian)
  • http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article5751 (in Croatian)
  • http://ponude.biz/knjige/r/Rat%20u%20Hrvatskoj91-95.pdf (in Serbian), apparently the same as the two-part text above

 Done Interestingly, I stumbled upon the same text in English few days ago (it's in use now). Thanks for the tip though!--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very complex subject and a substantial article, so I've likely missed a number of things - I'll post more and/or provide further comments, time allowing. GregorB (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I placed numbers in your remarks to make a better overview, hope you don't mind.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, looks better now. Unfortunately, inserting content in the list resets the numbering... GregorB (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and effort you took to review this article. I've already addressed some of your remarks, and I plan to do the remaining ones within a day or so...--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the responses took a bit longer, but I hope their quality benefited from that. I have tried to address all the issues you brought up - I believe the article genuinely benefited from this review. Once again, thanks for your effort. I hope the improvements warrant your support in this A-class review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the responses both quick and thoughtful, often aiming higher than just "patching" the issue at hand. I think that the article has progressed correspondingly. I have no further remarks regarding content. I'm going to wait until we're finished with the items above (we're almost there now), and then I'm going to provide some additional technical remarks regarding referencing style. GregorB (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can say now that all my substantial remarks have been addressed. The additional remarks, as described above, will be added in the next 24 hours. GregorB (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again thanks for the time you took to review this article, hope this earns your support for A-class promotion!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that things are moving in the right direction... :-) GregorB (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The following are the additional remarks regarding referencing:

• All online sources should provide the |accessdate= param (except, perhaps, Google Books and such - does not really make much sense).
• All (or almost all?) sources should provide the |work= param. For newspapers, this is the newspaper's name (i.e. say The New York Times is the work, displayed in italics, not the publisher). For websites, the situation is a bit less clear: one might say that the work is e.g. "icty.org" or say that the publisher is the ICTY, or both. Not sure on this one.

Actually, for newspapers, the template page specifies newspaper parameter, so I'll use that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, |author= if possible. From what I can see, this is generally OK, but |authorlink= might be provided too where applicable. Notes apparently use |first= and |last=, unlike the references. This is probably preferred to |author=, but I wouldn't call this inconsistency a problem.
• I think there's no need to specify here all the other important params that should generally be provided: language, publisher (for books mostly), isbn/issn, format, etc. These are mostly fine from what I can see.

working on citation parameters...--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did most of them, I still have to find out proper way to reference movies and documentaries...--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only {{cite video}} AFAIK. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A WP:GOCE copyedit of the article seems to be underway right now, so I'll prepare (hopefully) those in my sandbox and paste those into the article later.

I believe I got them all now, so I think this may be  Done now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Given the number of references, it would be convenient to implement WP:CITESHORT using wikilinks (see WP:CITEX). By no means required. GregorB (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• For Google Books one might trim the URL junk so that id is the only parameter remaining. E.g. http://books.google.hr/books?id=gmRbRwAACAAJ&dq=Srpska+pobuna+u+Hrvatskoj+1990-1995&hl=hr&ei=Bg0JTeXXH8-UswbSyeiTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA becomes just http://books.google.hr/books?id=gmRbRwAACAAJ. Purely cosmetic, of course.

working on this one simultaneously with the cite parameters...--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• "History of Croatia" sidebar is taking away horizontal space which would be useful for so many references in the section. Move it elsewhere, perhaps? (Just a suggestion...)

Any suggestion where to move it? Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving some images out, actually two maps: the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag map is not actually a source or based on a source rather on a broad description, so is that WP:SYNTH? Also the map of Bihać pocket IMO is not really necessary as the infobox map indicates where Bihać is in relation to other parts of Croatia and the map itself is quite approximate too. Perhaps when those two are removed there may be sufficient space to place that sidebar? Alternatively, the sidebar could be moved up a few sections quite harmlessly to where Movies and documentaries section begins - nothing would have to be rearranged then and the notes would get the extra space. Any thoughts on those two?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar might be placed under the infobox. GregorB (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the sidebar was initially under the infobox, and because of that there was a huge space between two name section's: 'Background' & 'Rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia'. see end of a section 'operations in the timeline (previously in the campaign box)' on a article's talk page. Maybe Tomobe03 will have some good idea about this? Kebeta (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to move the sidebar to just below the infobox (in preview only not to disrupt the article) and did not observe any major problem with the sidebar. When placed within the fix bunching template it presents a white gap between the text to the left of the sidebar and the sidebar itself. If left out of the template it renders just fine, although a couple of right-aligned images are pushed down. IMO that could be fixed by avoiding right-aligned images in the first few sections, say, down to Military forces or so. (Contrary to "popular belief" MOS:IMAGES does not prohibit left aligned images set against a sidebar/infobox, rather sandwiching text between two images.) My screen resolution is 1366x768 so it tends to bring images closer together than vertically than some other setups as the text gets drawn out horizontally.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - the sidebar should be placed where it's least disruptive, and if that's the references section, then so be it. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the External links: "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [1], World Courts [2] and Sense [3]" is ugly and should be properly formatted.

 Done as suggested, also formatted other ones to conform to WP:EXT. Added ODP template linking site containing a number of articles, including ones that were found in this section (those links were consequently removed as redundant).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but the "Movies and documentaries" section looks malformed for some reason, with bare external links. The previous layout looked fine to me. Anyway, the {{cite video}} template is generally meant to be used when the content of a video serves as a reference, not for merely saying "this film exists" (IMDb is generally sufficient for this). GregorB (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get it now: one cannot use both a wikilinked title and an URL. I'd say that, with a wikilink supplied, URL is redundant. GregorB (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We've touched the issue of article size: although it is quite big (72 kb of prose, and also in the Special:LongPages top 100), I still don't think this is a significant problem at the moment.

These are my final comments. One pass through the refs should be enough... GregorB (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. As I already mentioned, all my substantial remarks have been addressed. Some additional improvements (other than the ones discussed here) have also been implemented since this review started. Referencing is excellent, relying where possible on English-language sources, which is not only in line with relevant guidelines, but also contributes to neutrality. Comprehensiveness is also excellent. I cannot find factual errors or significant omissions. Moreover, it is obvious that significant effort has gone into putting facts in proper context and providing background where necessary. The article size is substantial, but in my opinion still not problematic, because it stays on topic and avoids unnecessary details (i.e. only rather minor trimming might still be possible/desirable). Prose quality is very good, improved by the recent thorough copyedit.

Right now I can only extend my hope that additional editors will join in, there is still enough time for a review. GregorB (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GregorB for your extensive review and your final 'Support'. Regerds, Kebeta (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Remarks by AustralianRupert

• Comments: I have made a few edits but am having trouble loading the article with my internet connection, so I will list some of the issues I am seeing:
  • in the lead, the first sentence is quite convoluted and probably would benefit from being split up;

I admit it is a bit unwieldy. As a stopgap measure, I punctuated a dependent clause using em dashes and replacing "former" with a proper name. I'll give it some more thought for sure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the lead, "and both the Serbia-controlled Yugoslav People's Army". I think this should be "Serb-controlled...";

 Done per suggestion.

• • in the Background section, this is not grammatically correct: "The fourth vote was provided by Montenegro, whose government survived a coup d'état in October 1988, but not second in January 1989" (there is a word missing; it should be "1988, but not a second one in...");

 Done per suggestion.

• • in the Croatian forces and the First armed incidents sections, the emdashes are incorrectly spaced. Per WP:DASH they should not be spaced;

 Done Removed those spacings as well as further instances that appeared in the notes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Croation forces section, "...later "Croatian Army" (Croatian: Hrvatska vojska) - that was formed on April 11" (the hyphen here should be an unspaced emdash);

 Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the War crimes and the ICTY section, this is not grammatically correct: "was convicted to a jail sentence by a Croatian court" (maybe reword to "convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail by a Croatian court");

 Done similar to the suggestion.

• • "The disaster was prevented by Mark Nicholas Gray, a Colonel in..." (incorrect capitalisation of rank, per Wikipedia:MILMOS#Capitalization, it should be "colonel" when not being used as a title;

 Done as suggested. Found a few incorrectly capitalized generals and fixed them too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in contrast to the point above, "president Josipović" should be "President Josipović" in this case because it is his title, as opposed to "Josipovic was the president";

 Done that as well as other presidents and some ministers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Electoral and consistutional moves section, is this correct: "anti-Yugounitarist" (Yugo unitarist perhaps?);

 Done Yes that was clumsy - now it's slightly reworded to avoid the double prefix.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I have tried to fix some examples, but there is a mixture of US and British English spelling, for example: Croatian Defence Council (is the proper noun Defence, or should it be Defense); programme, kilometres, favoured, armoured, manoeuvre, Home Defence Regiments. Overall the article appears to favour US spelling so it should all be consistent;

I corrected the ones you specified, except for Croatian Defence Council as I'm not sure how to proceed there. Their official name is in Croatian, and it is normally translated in BE spelling. Would it be better to change it to US or keep it as is. As a possible guidance for me here, would a non-US text change Israel Defense Force to Israel Defence Force? Of course I'll scan the text for other similar inconsistencies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is normally translated in to BE spelling, then we could treat it as a proper noun and thus it would not need to be changed. I think the IDF usually use US spelling, so Israel Defense Force would be a proper noun and wouldn't be changed. I might be wrong in all of this, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can find, indeed the BE spelling is normally used.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Notes section there appears to be an inconsistent style in presenting accessdates: e.g. Note # 18 "January 17, 2011", but Note # 21 "Retrieved 2010-02-07". There are many examples of this;

 Done GregorB already pointed out varying date formats, but I neglected the notes. Now they should be uniform, as I think I got them all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the References section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g "Anatomy of deceit: an American physician's first-hand encounter with the realities of the war in Croatia" should be "Anatomy of Deceit: An American Physician's First-hand Encounter with the Realities of the War in Croatia" (there are other examples also);

 Done per suggestion. If I understood WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles correctly that does not apply to non-English titles, or am I wrong?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I don't think it applies to non-English titles. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the References section, the date ranges in the titles should have endashes per WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll fix those as soon as possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I could see your changes look quite good. I'm still having serious trouble fully loading the article (it might be because of its size, or that my computer was built in the Stone Age), so I haven't been able to review the sources, check the image licences and fully read the paragraphs, sorry. I'll see if another reviewer might be able to do this, by leaving a note on the project talk page. One other suggestion that I have is for alt text to be added to the images. Guidance can be found here: WP:ALT. I'll try to come back to this article tomorrow and hopefully by then my connection will have improved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and thanks for the invite for other MILHIST contributors. I definitely plan to place alt text where suitable fairly shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Further comments: Sorry, my internet connection is still struggling with this article (it is taking about 20 minutes to load the page and editting is almost impossible for me). I can't comment on the content really, as I have no knowledge of it, so I am focusing mainly on prose. From what I can see there is a bit of work required in this area before it could be passed as an A-class article, but that is not necessarily to say that it can't make it in the time period allocated (it will be due for closure on 11 February, so there is a bit of time). I will list a few examples from the Military forces section as I see them. If you can work on these now, and then go through the article again looking for similar issues, it might help tighten the prose:

I'll try to find some of those myself, but just to be on the safe side, I asked a WP:GOCE copyeditor (User:Diannaa) to help with this issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Serbian forces subsection, this sentence is not grammatically correct: "The JNA was initially formed during World War II to carry out guerrilla warfare against Axis powers occupation." (perhaps: "to carry out guerrilla warfare against occupying Axis forces");

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Serbian forces subsection, there is a typo in this sentence: "However, by 1991, majority of this equipment was over 30 years old: it consisted substantially out of T-54/55 tank and the MiG-21 aircraft." (perhaps try "However, by 1991, the majority of this equipment was 30 years old, as the force consisted primarily of T-54/55 tanks and MiG-21 aircraft");

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Serbian forces subsection, this is not grammatically correct: "such as Soko G-4 Super Galeb and most notably Soko J-22 Orao whose armaments included AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles". Perhaps try: "such as the Soko G-4 Super Galeb and, most notably, the Soko J-22 Orao, whose armament included AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles";

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • there is a missing word here: "new conscripts proved ineffective fighting force". Try: "the new conscripts proved an ineffective fighting force";

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • this needs tweaking: "Thus paramilitary units like White Eagles, Serbian Guard, Dušan Silni or Serb Volunteer Guard, that committed numerous massacres against Croat and other non-Serbs civilians, became increasingly relied upon by the Yugoslav and Serb forces". Perhaps try: "Thus paramilitary units like the White Eagles, Serbian Guard, Dušan Silni or the Serb Volunteer Guard, which committed a number of massacres against Croat and other non-Serb civilians, were increasingly used by the Yugoslav and Serb forces";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I suggest wikilinking "officers" to Officer (armed forces) on first mention;

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Croatian forces subsection, "By contrast to that force, Croatian military was in a much worse state." Perhaps try: "In contrast to the Serbs, the Croatian military was in a much worse state";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Croatian forces subsection, "At the early stages of the war, lack of military..." This should be: "In the early stages of the war, the lack of military...";

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • in the Croatian forces subsection, this sentence is quite confused and probably needs to be broken up somehow (not sure myself, sorry): "At the early stages of the war, lack of military units meant that the Croatian Police force would take the brunt of fighting—eventually the police would form the core of the new armed force—initially named "Croatian National Guard" (Croatian: Zbor narodne garde), later "Croatian Army" (Croatian: Hrvatska vojska)—that was formed on April 11, 1991, but not really developed until 1993";

 Done I gave it a go, how about this setup?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • "WW2" this abbreviation is a bit informal, it is probably best just to say "World War II";

 Done per suggestion. --Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • this needs tweaking: "Weaponry was always lacking and many units were formed either unarmed or with WW2-era rifles. The Croatian Army had just a handful of tanks (even older WW2 veterans like the T-34) and its air-force was even worse: a few old Antonov An-2 biplane crop-dusters were converted to drop makeshift bombs." Perhaps try: "Weaponry was in short supply and many units were formed either unarmed or with obsolete World War II-era rifles. In terms of armor, the Croatian Army had only a handful of tanks, including World War II surplus vehicles such as the T-34, and its air force was in an even worse state, consisting of only a few Antonov An-2 biplane crop-dusters that had been converted to drop makeshift bombs";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • this needs tweaking: "However, since the soldiers were defending their homeland and their families the army was exceptionally motivated, and was formed into local fighting units—so people from a village would defend their own village—which meant they were fairly effective in their home grounds." Perhaps try: "However, since the soldiers were defending their homeland and their families, the army was very motivated and was formed into local fighting units. Fighting in their local area, they proved quiet effective";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • "In August 1991, the Croatian Army had fewer than 20 brigades, which would grow to 60 brigades and 37 independent battalions by the end of the year through general mobilization which was initiated in October". Perhaps try: "In August 1991, the Croatian Army had fewer than 20 brigades. General mobilization was instituted in October, though, and subsequently the size of the army grew 60 brigades and 37 independent battalions by the end of the year";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • there is a missing word, capitalisation and flow issue issue here: "Seizing of JNA's barracks in the Battle of the barracks would alleviate the problem of equipment shortage." Perhaps: "The seizure of the JNA's barracks between September and December helped to alleviate the Croatians' equipment shortage and allowed them to recapture most of the weaponry that the JNA had confiscated from the Croatian TO depots in 1990. A significant number of heavy weapons were also captured, along with the 32nd JNA Corps' entire armory";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • there is a missing word here: "By 1995, balance of power significantly changed. Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina combined were estimated to be capable of fielding at most 130,000 troops. " Perhaps "By 1995, the balance of power had shifted significantly. Combined, Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were capable of fielding an estimated 130,000 troops";

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • there is a missing word here as well as a punctuation issue: "On the other hand, Croatian Army, Croatian Defence Council (Croatian: Hrvatsko vijeće obrane) (HVO) and Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina could field a combined force of 250,000 soldiers. In addition the three forces commanded a total of 570 tanks." Perhaps try: "On the other hand, the Croatian Army, Croatian Defence Council (Croatian: Hrvatsko vijeće obrane) (HVO) and the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could field a combined force of 250,000 soldiers. In addition the three forces commanded a total of 570 tanks". AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done per suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment - the article is really long. My internet connection is relatively fast, and it still takes about 20–30 seconds to load. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is interesting... The article is long, but it's a matter of seconds for me, on an average connection (2 Mbit/s), tried with Firefox 3, Chrome, and MSIE 8. It is only slow in MSIE 6. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I'm still having troubles loading the article (I've tried both Firefox and IE). It took me ten minutes to load this morning, and then five to save one edit. This is making it very difficult for me to review the article, unfortunately. From what I can tell, though, Diannaa is doing an excellent job copyediting the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's too bad. There might still be a possibility to read it offline, by saving it as MHT first (MSIE only), or by downloading it as PDF. Printing to PDF is also a good idea, if you have that option. You might want to wait for Diannaa to finish her run first. GregorB (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral (neither support or oppose): this A-class review will be due for closing by an uninvolved co-ordinator in about 24 hours time (they have a 28 day limit). At that point the decision about whether it can be promoted to A-class or not will be made. I believe that a lot of excellent work has been done on this article, however, as I have been unable to check all the sources and read the article fully due to connection issues (downloading the pdf copy crashed my machine this afternoon), unfortunately I am unable to support its promotion to A-class at this time. However, I will not oppose either, though, for as I said, I believe a lot of work has gone into the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the effort. The article has been significantly improved, and your help is welcome in the future. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.