Talk:Battle of Logorište

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Logorište/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 07:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

A few very minor grammatical tweaks were made here and there. With that done, the article complies with policies on style, prose, and structure. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes frequent citations to a relatively vast collection of reputable sources. In terms of verifiability nothing seems left to chance. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

Looks as though all aspects of the subject for which relevant, encyclopedic information can be reliably provided have been covered in thorough. None of the information in the article appears irrelevant or excessive. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article discusses all aspects of the topic in a fair, neutral manner. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The edit history shows that the article has scarcely been edited since last November, and no unconstructive edits seem to have been made amongst the revisions immediately shown, so I think the stability factor is in the clear. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All three images used in the article are validly licensed, and play relevant illustrative roles. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through the article and checking it against the outlined criteria above, I am confident that it is ready to be classified among the GAs of Wikipedia. Congratulations! :) As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lede sentence

I don't feel comfortable undertaking a GAR on this article, but I want to comment on the lede. Sentence-by sentence, with my comments in italics:

• "The Battle of Logorište was fought just to the east of Duga Resa and south of Karlovac, Croatia, on 4–6 November 1991, during the Croatian War of Independence."
  • No problem.
• "It was a clash between the Croatian National Guard (Zbor narodne garde – ZNG) holding the Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija – JNA) Logorište barracks under blockade started in the Battle of the Barracks on one side, and the garrison breaking out of the barracks, supported by JNA and SAO Krajina units deployed to lift blockade of Logorište barracks and other JNA garrisons in Karlovac."
  • Very complex. Does it mean the ZNG was holding – as in they had captured – the JNA barracks? If one side was "holding the barracks", which side was blockading them and which side was trying to break out of the barracks and which side was trying to lift the blockade?

See why I'm confused? How about re-writing it to say: "The ZNG had captured the JNA Logoriste barracks on xx October 1991 and was under siege by the JNA which was seeking to retake them." – S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for the observation. Clarified now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)