Talk:27th Infantry Division Savska/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I will review this article against the GA criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, a very impressive military formation article, which I believe pretty much meets the GA criteria already. I have a few suggestions/comments to help you take it to the next level: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References: very well referenced throughout, I couldn't locate any places that I felt needed additional citations;
Prose: overall, no real dramas, but a couple of points:

inconsistent: "draft animals" v. "draught animals" (probably should move the link here, too)
query: "machinegun" --> "machine gun" or "machine-gun"?
"The 4th Army was to deploy in a cordon along the western sector of the Hungarian border" --> this appears to be missing a clarifying clause. Perhaps, "In the event of a mobilisation, the 4th Army was to deploy in a cordon along the western sector of the Hungarian border"?
"The 27th Infantry Division Savska had only commenced mobilisation..." --> again, I suggest stating when. Perhaps, "At the start of the Axis invasion, the 27th Infantry Division Savska had only commenced mobilisation..."
repetition: "About 10:30, the Germans reached the defensive line near Torčec, and fighting began." This sentence appears twice;

Lead: I notice that the lead doesn't summarise any of the division's pre war history. I understand that it might not be possible to pin down exactly when the formation came into existence, but it might be possible to summarise some of the structure paragraphs.
Headings/structure: I'd suggest adding a second level heading called "Structure", and then subordinating the "Peacetime organisation" and "Wartime organisation" headings to it as third level headings. Additionally, I think "Royal Yugoslav Army" would probably be better rendered as "Background". I also think "Mobilisation" might be better if it were subordinated to "Operations" (all just suggestions only - open to discussion, of course);
Clarity: is it possible to clarify what 'Savaska' means, or from where it is derived, or why it is part of the unit title? (sorry if I missed this);
Links:

"Ustaše" appears to be overlinked;
suggest linking "battery", "company", "squadron", "battalion", "regiment" etc.

Formatting: in the References section, the Brayley source is missing a place of publishing (not a GAN requirement, most certainly, but it will help when/if you go to ACR)
Formatting: in the References section, the majority of locations aren't linked, but you link Bloomington. Is this necessary? (also not a GAN requirement);
Images:

licencing: "File:Damaged bridge over the Drava, April 1941.jpg" - this one has a US Army work licence...not sure about this. The publication it is taken from is no doubt US Army, but the photo would have (one presumes) have been taken by a German (or a German ally), or a really brave Yugoslav defender whose priorities were potentially muddled...!?
Captions: "A damaged bridge over the Drava with a German soldier in the foreground" --> this caption seems more like alt text. Perhaps this might be better, "The damaged Drava river bridge following its capture by German forces". Or something different?

Anyway, that's it from me. Great work, overall. Just a couple of minor points to discuss, or implement as you see fit. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Rupert! All done (except for the licensing issue, which I have asked Nikki to help me out on). I believe the copyright in confiscated German war films vested in the Alien Property Custodian and were not restored to the German government per 17 U.S.C. 104A(a)(2), but just need to work out with her what US tag is most appropriate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert: it doesn't appear that there is a basis for it to be PD at this stage, so I've removed it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. I was hoping we were going to be able to keep it. Anyway, your changes look great, so I've passed the article now. Good luck with taking it further if you decide to do so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]