Talk:Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia/GA1

GA Review

Reviewer: Shotgunscoop (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shotgunscoop - many thanks for taking this on! Aeengath (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article criteria:

1. In general, well written and covered, reads with relative ease. Grammar and style could be improved. (No for now)
2. Images have been checked for copyright, doesn't seem to have plagiarism or original research, citations good. (Yes)
3. Appropriately covers and stays on the main topic (Yes)
4. Contains charged language. (No)
5. Doesn't seem to be an edit war. (Yes)
6. Media are appropriate for the article and licensed. (Yes)

Comments (Round 1)

Grammar/Style: The article has many instances of charged language that need to be removed (ex. "harshest measures" in 5th paragraph of lede. Many paragraphs are run-on sentences and neverending clauses. Confusion with periods and commas can easily be misinterpreted in some sentences in the article.

Removed charged words and rephrased lead for clarity. Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In "The campaign of the central powers", what is meant by a "military convention" being signed? Does it mean a treaty?

Rephrased section for clarity with new elements Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

In "Occupation forces", were the garrison forces Austro-Hungarian or drafted from the local populace? Also, do the numbers 70,000 and 50,000 refer to the number of Austro-Hungarian soldiers?

Reorganised section, removed potentially confusing sentences. Is that better? Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better. Only thing I changed is the semicolon to a comma. Although it's still technically gramatically incorrect, I think it makes more sense from a grammatical point of view.

The last paragraph of "Denationalisation and depoliticisation" and the first paragraph of "Repression" contain duplicate information. Also, "Repression" could be renamed to "Repression of Serbs" to be more precise, perhaps?

Well done spotting that duplicate! removed! I don't think adding Repression "of Serbs" for that section is necessary as, apart from the minority mentioned previously in the article, the country was pretty much ethnically homogeneous. Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense.

General Conrad should be switched to General von Hötzendorf by default, is there a special reason for the use of the first name Conrad?

Conrad was actually his last name, he used both long and shortened versions of his name as mentioned on his article. Since in most sources used for this article, he is just referred as Conrad example, I have switched them all to General Conrad for consistency.Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense.

The article doesn't elaborate on what Serbian chetniks are and the article supposedly dedicated to them is not very informative. Could you clarify what these people are?

Added some info about Chetniks and re-organised that section with a bit more content. Yes you are right that Chetnik article is not very informative, it's next on my list! Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!

Overall, the article can be taken to good article status after clarifying a few minor points and a general copyedit, which I can do if you don't want to. Thanks!

Comments (Round 2, Final) @Aeengath:, just in case you didn't notice

Paragraph 2 of the lede mentions how there were three failed Austro-Hungarian offensives but there are only mentions of 2 failed offensives in the article.

reworked that part to bring the content back Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

The section "Punitive expedition and first occupation contains the word Balkanstreitkräfte. Could this word be clarified/translated?

added the translation and the source Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

In "Tensions with Bulgaria regarding south Serbia", is the "Albanian-inhabited Serbian territory" in the second paragraph referring to "greater part of Kosovo", "Metohija", south Serbia as a whole, or "a smaller part of Kosovo"?

I decided to re-write to the whole paragraph to make it clearer, what do you think? Aeengath (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I changed some grammar but tried not to mess with the content.

Another word to clarify - "Etappenzone" in the first paragraph of "Economic exploitation and famine".

added explanation Aeengath (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great.

Finished my copyedit. I'm going to pass this review now, unless you have any other questions. Thanks! Shotgunscoop (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Shotgunscoop: for your review and comments, Best, Aeengath (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]