Talk:Battle of Šibenik/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to look at this, as before AGF on citations etc.

fought north and west ; I think this needs a to the in it. Maybe.
The initial orders of the JNA; The JNA's initial orders...
The JNA Šibenik garrison was evacuated through the negotiations, but the ZNG captured several comparably small JNA posts in the city.; what negotiations? :S Also the second fragment of this sentence doesn't seem to follow on from the first... I have to confess it lost me a little!
led to preparation of bomb shelters in Zadar; by whom?
SAO Krajina; you treat this like the other abbreviations, but never use it in full. I'd be inclined to simplify this abbreviation to something in plain English, whatever is most appropriate, as that is more accessible to a lay reader
You do use a lot of abbreviations in the text. I'd be inclined to occasionally drop in the full name, or even just use simple things like "the Croations" where it makes sense, to help remind the reader. Especially when you have things like SAO Krajina TO :)
all JNA facilities it had access to; I understand what you are saying here, but it could be misread that having access meant they had captured them. I'm not sure if it needs to be clarified or not, but I thought I'd raise the point

More later, I have to head out now :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the review. I addressed all of the above issues, except I did not expand SAO Krajina abbreviation except at the first instance in the lede and the body prose, since the abbreviated name itself is prevalent in sources (but I eliminated one instance in a section where it occurred four times though). All TO abbreviations were expanded on the other hand.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all look good :) sorry I've taken a few days to get to the rest of the review, I wanted the time to do it properly. More tonight. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the corps ordered its units to advance; This reads oddly to me.. Or did someone else order the corps to advance? I think it could be rephrased.
- Rephrased a bit. Not specified who gave the order. The corps could have been instructed by the JNA general staff or the Maritime military district, but I omitted the info since it is not carried over by the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ostensible; do you mean ostensibly? The definition for this word is something like 'apparently'. e.g. you are saying that the JNA appeared to shift focus away, but in reality they were still focused on the city.
- The focus actually shifted - removed "ostensibly".--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evacuation of the JNA; this section took me by surprise... seeing as it seems more related to the end of the battle, rather than the last part of the article! To a certain extent I question whether much of this information is required as it pertains more directly to the wider war, rather than the battle, and is perhaps more relevant in an article about the withdrawal etc. Certainly I think it could be cut down and incorporated at the beginning of the Aftermath section (or even, in fact I think better, as a subsection of Timeline). So perhaps consider this? I definitely think that it doesn't work at the end of the article.
- Hm, actually, the battle ended in late September and the initial part of the "Aftermath" section should say a thing or two about the effects of the said battle. Regardless of the failed JNA offensive to capture the city of Šibenik, the JNA was left in control of two army barracks, one coastal artillery battery and several storage sites in or near Šibenik after the battle ended. The JNA controlled facilities were besieged by Croatian troops but once the September battle ended, there was little or no shooting around those facilities. This type of situation persisted until early December when the JNA evacuated from the facilities (as agreed in November). The "Evacuation" subsection is meant to clarify this. In short two and a half months passed between the end of the battle and the evacuation. The evacuation is included as it was in a way forced by the outcome of the battle. I added a sentence to clarify this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Do you think things would get clearer if the subsection were retitled to "Subsequent evacuation of the JNA" or "November–December evacuation of the JNA"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Revised, largely as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment (i.e. not part of the review), some of your sentences are very long, consisting of numerous sub-clauses. It might be worth working through and splitting some of them down into smaller lengths :)
- Will do. Split some already in the Evacuation subsection.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I think my review is finished. Please check my copyedits. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The copyedits seem to be alright. I think I have addressed all the GAR issues now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to promote this. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]