Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Zadar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

[edit]

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV ? lets remove the tag (possibly)

[edit]

There is no any dispute about POV initiated.

The POV mark was inserted even withoud any other comment. [1] According the previous actions of the IP address 68.60.153.73 I would guess that he was not satisfied with quality or usage of this reference, but he was unable to remove it [2] or to improve it or indicate what actually should have been wrong according to his view. That is merely my gues, but I do not see any other way to find the objections against objectivity in the article, except taht there will anyone else find the flaw (in the usage of the reference?) and report it here. So I do propose to remove the POV tag by anyone if no objection will appear on the talk page, lets say within month. Reo ON | +++ 11:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were two planes shot down, not one in "both of them" situation.

[edit]

Even this Serbian site verifies it: http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com/jrvudesi.html I'll edit that false statement (that only one plane was shot) on all wikipedia pages mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Destroyer Split at Battle of Dalmatia

[edit]

'One of the ships involved in the blockade was the destroyer Split; the first time in history that a city came under attack from a warship bearing its own name.'. I've checked wikipedia for Split destroyer and fount this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_destroyer_Split stating it was 'Fate: scrapped 1986'. How is it now operational in the eighties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.254.13 (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the problem is in the lack of precision when talking about ship names. This article is talking about a vessel called VPBR-31 Split, while that one is talking about R-11 Split. This needs to be verified and clarified. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per:
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Victory ???

[edit]

It is true, that Zadar and Sibenik were not captured by the serbs, but Kijevo, Skabrnja, Benkovac, Obrovac, Zemunik, Malesnica, Drnis, Vrlika and the Peruca dam were occupied and captured by the serbs, in and directly before this serbian military operation in 1991. So clear is that, the croats lost a lot of cities, villages and territory, while the serbs did not loose anything in this operation. So it is stupid to say, that this is a croatian victory, because the croats got nothing they only lost!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.252.146 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independently I came to the same conclusion. The Serbian side failed to achieve their strategic objective, while the Croatian side did, but overall it was not a terrific success for anyone. On the scale of the war, the Croatian successes in this operation were significant, but on the scale of the battle they weren't. The infobox is now updated to say it was a stalemate and what each side achieved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article seems more neutral to me, but there is one thing I would add ... something about the peruca dam ... i think it wouldn´t be bad to add that although the serbs didn`t destroy it, they managed to damage it; so there was no electricity in the surrounding area for the next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.244.144 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is 1993 and onwards, which is two years after this operation anyway, so I've put the details in the Peruća Dam article. I did note here that the failure to bring down the dam still put it out of operation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article title

[edit]

The previous title, "Battle of Dalmatia" and "Battle for Dalmatia", seemed overly generic to me, so I went and looked them up a bit:

Just to make sure, I also checked the Croatian phrase:

So I moved the article away from the clearly WP:OR and overly generic title (three or four more battles were waged in Dalmatia in the same war, each of which could have technically determined the fate of the region enough to be called "the" battle of Dalmatia). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, the current title, "Obala-91", is not particularly well known, but at least I confirmed its existence quickly in similar sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The codename "Obala-91" (Coast-91) was assigned by the JNA to a plan of an attack on Šibenik in November 1991 (sources: [3] and [4]). WP:MILMOS#NAME recommends use of generic terms such as "Battle of X" with the X being a geographic location name, but it would be a stretch to say that the activities described in the article represent a single battle. There is a dubious mention of Operation Kopaonik but that is thoroughly unverifiable in books, journals or other RS. There is further conflation of the "Operation Coast-91" term in the Battle of Šibenik (1991) article.
It may very well be that an attack on Zadar was planned as a supporting axis of an action against Šibenik or vice versa, but the sources seem to indicate that the Coast-91 at the very least falls into November and was (at least primarily) focused on Šibenik. In that respect, the current title of the article is quite wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was never very much thought out. We could merge the content into the new campaign article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose that. There is quite a lot of material regarding activities of the Knin Corps in Zadar and Šibenik theatres (as well as some relatively minor activity in Sinj area) that would warrant a proper article. Merging with the campaign would result in an unblanaced article (specifically violating WP:GACR 3b). I would prefer a single article on the war in the northern Dalmatia in 1991, merging the Battle of Šibenik (1991) with this one. The two seem to overlap as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe even as 1991 Yugoslav campaign in the northern Dalmatia if that's not pushing it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, there's a possibility to develop one article describing the Battle of Zadar and another dealing with the Battle of Šibenik. Of course, both would encompass ancillary activities in the specific areas (e.g. Maslenica Bridge capture would fit in the prelude of the Zadar article and the capture of Drniš in the Šibenik article's prelude) - maybe that's a better idea (not dissimilar to the Battle of Osijek). Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose the latest proposal to merge the riots article with this one since the riots were not the prelude to the battle, but two distinct events related by location (and loosely period). Causes, types, outcomes etc are vastly different for the two. While it is tempting to stick the riots article someplace, this article is not a good place for that. Of course, there is some information already in this article on the event - was the proposal meant to add more and what would that be?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My key point is that the riots as such are one in a series of inextricably linked events, yet currently the least well referenced one. It essentially arose as a talking point article, and hasn't been salvaged since. Readers looking up the riot would be much better served by reading this article, not because a riot equals a battle, but because the battle article explains the historical context from top to bottom. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I was working on this article, I researched sources on the riots. Much of the present riot article is based (the part that is based on any sources whatsoever) on a sentence or two given as ICTY testimony by a former RSK minister (repeated several times by FRY government). For instance, none of the sources I found (including the ICTY testimony) says a peep on Šibenik as anything else except "a protest", while others clarify that those were held in front of a JNA command of some sort - i.e. saying that those were "anti-Serb" is more than dubious, at least I cannot think of any way those deserve such an attribute. I would prefer rewriting the riot article than deliberating at length on the event in this one - even writing a new one on the Split demonstrations four days later. Those should not be too complex and hard to do - and the historical context can be equally well provided in the riots article. If you like this proposal, I'll set to work on that as soon as the Battle of Šibenik is done (it's underway already). Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Zadar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry to see this has been here so long. Under the circumstances, I'll bend my rule about avoiding reviews of 1990's Yugoslavia etc articles and get started on it shortly.[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Good
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. OK
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good level of detail
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. OK, but see my comments below regards taking this article to ACR
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. OK
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. OK, but see my comment about the Map of Zadar area below.
7. Overall assessment. Passed, all comment addressed

Comments It'll take me a few days to get through this.

  • no overlinking (no action required)
  • suggest "military engagement" rather than "armed conflict", as conflict tends to relate to wars. Done
  • suggest "subsequent negotiations producedresulted in" Done
  • I've got some concerns about the use of what is a questionable source in terms of reliability and independence from the subject on this battle, the Department of Public Relations and Information, Croatian Ministry of Defence. Can you step me through this? Done
    • Sure, there are six instances of use of such a source, comprising six different articles published by Nazor in the MoD published magazine "Hrvatski vojnik", as follows:
  1. Citation #30 is used to reference deployment of specific JNA units to the area. The article itself contains JNA issued documents, specifically orders issued to units to deploy to specific areas - the 221st Mechanised Bde, 557th Artillery Rgmt, 9th Artillery Rgmt and the 9th MP Bat, supported by TO of Knin, Benkovac and Obrovac. I trust that JNA orders to its own troops published by MoD magazine cannot be controversial material.
  2. Citation #35 is used to reference JNA's estimate of Croatian forces strength and the published article contains a JNA report, compiled by the Major General Vladimir Vuković (commanding officer of the Knin Corps at the time) containing JNA's assessment of Croatian orbat. The claim presented in the article that the JNA estimated Croatian troop strength at the said number is thus referenced by JNA document published later by the MoD. The figure provided by the JNA is in itself quite plausible and I do not think this may be considered a controversial issue.
  3. Citation #38 is used to reference commencement of the attacking operation ordered by Vuković and subsequent modification of the attacking operation - again the article contains Vuković's command to the corps specifying the modifications and mentions the commencement hour. As in the two citations above, the JNA modification of the plan is referenced to the JNA document published by the MoD. The main purpose of this claim/reference is to demonstrate how did the diverting of the JNA assets to Šibenik area come about, the redeployment itself being quite non-controversial.
  4. Citation #39 is used to reference coordination between the Military Maritime Sector (MMS) and the 9th Knin Corps of the JNA - specifically between Vice Admiral Mile Kandić (commanding officer of the MMS) and the corps and nothing else. Even though the article does not carry a JNA document verbatim, and reports indirectly on Kandić's approval of the order, this is hardly controversial since the 9th Corps was subordinated to the MMS and the 9th Corps was supposed to coordinate (or seek approval) from the MMS. That said, I don't believe this particular instance might be considered non-neutral or controversial in any respect whatsoever.
  5. Citation #41 is used to reference a lull in fighting in late-September. The published article contains two short reports issued by the SAO Krajina TO headquarters specifying small groups of ZNG troops engaging TO in Šibenik and Knin area, fighting elsewhere (Sinj, Plaški) and sporadic gunfire around Benkovac - in reports covering the final week of September 1991, plus another short report of 1/2 October informing on renewed fighting around Zemunik (Zadar Airport/Zemunik air force base). The claim/reference are used to cover a week-long gap in significant-scale combat in Zadar area which is not contradicted by any source available. The SAO Krajina TO reports carried by the MoD magazine do not contain any particularly controversial statements.
  6. Citation #46 is used to reference 3 October order issued by Vuković to the 9th Corps to advance to Zadar again, and addition of the 1st Battalion of the 592nd Mech Bde. The article published by the MoD carries the order verbatim and since the claim/reference is used to specify when such an order was issued and that the element of the 592nd Bde was added to the attacking force, I believe the issue cannot be considered controversial.
  • The above JNA/TO documents are also published in ten volumes as documents captured in Knin (and elsewhere, but mostly in Knin) in Operation Storm. Overall, I steer clear of use of MoD published documents which seem to provide an analysis or other qualification of events, units etc precisely because they are not necessarily impartial. These six are used nonetheless because they carry reports on disposition of forces, dates when given orders were issued and routes used/planned for use by specific units - which are less prone to subjective interpretations. Hope this lengthy explanation cleared things up, but if you consider any of the above need further clarifications, please ask.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under criteria 4, I am a bit concerned that the "Yugoslavian" (as distinct from Croatian) version of events is not addressed in the article. How have you ensured neutrality with this article, given the sources seem to be entirely Croatian? Done
  • First, I have to disagree - it is not correct that the sources are entirely Croatian. Second, I have to say that most of the sources covering parts of the article other than "background" section are Croatian. I'm aware that situation is not the best, but it is a product of coverage of the events - which is poor and sketchy in Croatia and worse abroad. In order to deal with the situation, the Croatian sources are used to establish the timeline - as are the JNA sources (documents published by the MoD magazine). Perhaps it would be the best to demonstrate this in a case by case breakdown, so here it is:
  • Sources include seven books (all of them British or American), four scientific journal papers (all of them Croatian), 14 news reports (5 American, 9 Croatian), six MoD magazine articles containing JNA documents, an ICTY document and a Croatian State's Attorney Communique.
  • References 1-12 are all non-Croatian because they are used to back up analysis/value judgement in the "background" section. That entire section is backed exclusively by non-Croatian sources precisely to ensure neutrality.
  • The first part of the "prelude" section is covered by refs 13-22 (Ružić). Ružić himself relies on a mix of sources, Belgrade published Politika and Borba newspapers among them to back up the relevant passages. Regardless of his own sourcing, I tried to use the source to establish a timeline for events from May until mid-August, preceding the actual combat.
  • References 23-27, covering the rest of the "prelude" section are non-Croatian (Silber & Little, Ramet, CIA)
  • The first claim in the "Timeline" - one dealing with assigned task of the JNA force deployed in Zadar area is covered by the Balkan Battlegrounds source #28 (i.e. non-Croatian and presumably neutral in this matter)
  • The rest of the timeline section is covered by sources 29-50. Out of those 21, only one is non-regional (LA Times article, #42) and the remaining twenty include six instances of use of JNA documents published inside the MoD magazine (refs 30, 35, 38, 39, 41 & 46) already discussed above in order to demonstrate their neutral application within this article.
  • As with the JNA documents published by the MoD, I was careful not to carry analyses or value judgements from those sources into the article. Hopefully I succeeded there:
  • Cite #29 (Brigović paper) is used to reference claim what was the main axis of the attack and what were secondary efforts.
  • Cite #30 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #31 (Brigović & Radoš paper) is used a) to support claim that the 180th Bde was the main force and that it was 3000-strong (the first part being quite non-controversial, and the second part an expected figure for a brigade), b) support the claim that the 63rd Parachute Brigade took part in November fighting (not saying anything except it did take part) - No particular details exist regarding either brigade's contribution, therefore the source is used to establish orbat in a neutral manner
  • Cites #32-34 are used to establish defending force orbat (elements of the 4th Bde, 112th Bde and 2 independent battalions). I have no reason to question reliability of the sources on this since the 4th Bde (based in Split) was normally deployed in various parts of Dalmatia in a piecemeal fashion (up to a battalion strength) early in the war, the 112th Bde was raised and based in Zadar anyway and the two independent battalions existence is confirmed by orbat provided in the Balkan Battlegrounds (without specifically placing them in Zadar at this or any other time) and given their recruiting areas, the deployment seems plausible
  • Cite #32 is also used later on the text to reference cutting of electrical power supply to Zadar. It seems quite a reasonable consequence of fighting on the outskirts of a city to cause power cut to the city (the source is not used to speculate whether that was done on purpose or accidentally or who was the culprit). The source is a local newspaper, but I think it is not that controversial to have a local newspaper report on a power outage. The reference is used yet again to back up claim that the Croatian force capture seven JNA facilities in Zadar, while the remaining prose around that claim places this into context, saying which one of the facilities was significant and why. The cite is used as a source of factual info - number of facilities, brigade numbers, power cut occurred (presumably non-controversial issues themselves) - without any analysis or value judgement carried over.
  • Cite #33 (Čerina paper) is also used to back up claim that the Benkovac-Stankovci Battalion was amalgamated with the 1/112th Bde to form the 134th Infantry Brigade. I trust this is likewise non-controversial
  • Cite #34 (local news source) is also used to back up claim that the Škabrnja Battalion was transformed into 1/159th Bde. This and the claim above are presented without any analysis of combat effectiveness or other attributes of any of the involved units to ensure neutrality.
  • Cite #35 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #36 (Čerina) is used to reference claim that the defending force was poorly armed. This is consistent with overall assessments of Croatian forces in September 1991 performed by foreign authors, therefore I trust it is quite non-controversial.
  • Cite #37 (tportal news) is used to reference name of the colonel commanding defence of Zadar. The info found in the source is used without any analysis of his personal, professional or other characteristics to avoid any non-neutrality issues.
  • Cite #38 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #39 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #40 (Čerina paper) is used in three instances: to reference claims that a) ZNG was pushed back from Polača towards Škabrnja on 18 September (in those words, no analysis if it was a rout or an organized retreat) b) that Croatian forces captured 2,500 rifles and 100 machine guns in specific barracks in Zadar and c) that the JNA advanced towards Zadar on 29 September, capturing villages of Bulić, Lišane Ostrovičke and Vukšić. Again no analysis is provided in any of those instances, simply listing of toponyms or number of weapons as reported. Information presented in the source seems plausible and it is not contradicted elsewhere - even though very few sources on the combat exist.
  • Cite #41 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #42 (LA Times article) - non-Croatian source to begin with
  • Cite #43 (local news source) is used to reference day of the renewed fighting. The date is presented in a neutral way and the information is plausible given info available in JNA report of 1/2 October available in Citation #41 where an order to resume attacks is given
  • Cite #44 (Brigović & Radoš) the source is used to back up claim that a 2 October JNA attack in the area of Nadin was repelled. The claim is not contradicted anywhere else and is presented using a neutral formulation.
  • Cite #45 (Brigović) is used to reference start of a naval blockade. The info is readily available in non-Croatian literature, but I used Brigović out of convenience - the same source is used for several other refs, and sfn/harvnb templates make this type of reuse very tempting. Nonetheless, the info on the blockade is presented in a neutral way. The same source is used to back up claim that the blockade was lifted on 13 October.
  • Cite #46 (Hrvatski vojnik) see above
  • Cite #47 (Brigović) is used to reference final few developments in Zadar before the defending force was besieged and it requested negotiations. The source is also used to back up claim that the city was not captured by the JNA - through a reference to the claim that the city came under siege and then the engagement ended in negotiations.
  • Cite #48 (Brigović) is used to reference timetable of negotiations and negotiator names. No analysis or value judgement is given.
  • Cite #49 (Brigović) is used to reference info when the ceasefire came into effect. This is the same source as the above, covering consecutive page numbers. Likewise no analysis or value judgement is given.
  • Cite #50 (Brigović & Radoš) is used to reference info that Croatia declared its independence on 8 October, i.e. during the course of the negotiations - with no further analysis.
  • Cite #50 is the last item in the "timeline" section - While I had to rely on Croatian sources to establish the timeline, I tried to use those sources to do just that and nothing else, avoiding analyses or value judgements to ensure neutrality. The events themselves are fairly non-controversial by Croatia/Serbia standards anyway. Unfortunately, that also means that the news/scientific coverage is very poor, limiting source availability. I tried to search for any contradicting sources, but I found very few sources to begin with, let alone contradicting ones.
  • The "aftermath" section begins with an evaluation of the battle, and it is backed up by references 51-69:
  • Cite #51 (Balkan Battlegrounds) is used for an evaluation of the battle
  • Cite #52 (Brigović) is used to reference that a ceasefire was agreed, that the JNA did withdraw to reestablish Zadar-Pag road use but remained sufficiently close to be in position to threaten the city. Since the positions at the Zemunik/Zadar Airport, and Križ Hill remained less than 1 km away from the Adriatic Highway or the city of Zadar, the analysis that the JNA was in position to threaten the city seems plausible.
  • Cite #53 (Nacional weekly) backs up claim that 6 October is celebrated in Zadar without any value judgements
  • Cites #54-56 (Brigović) back up timeline of negotiated JNA evacuation from Zadar. The source is used to establish timeline only.
  • Cites #57-58 (Novi list newspaper and State Attorney Office communique) are used to back up number of civilian deaths attributed by the authorities to the JNA bombardment and charges/trial info. The information is presented with no in-depth analysis, simply listing info presented elsewhere. I found no contradicting information on casualties - actually hardly any info. In fact, military casualties of either side are nowhere to be found, apparently.
  • Cite #59 (Brigović & Radoš) is used at four points in the article, to back up claims on JNA capture of Škabrnja, Nadin, a push towards Novigrad and bombardment of Zadar. Info on capture of the two villages is available in non-Croatian sources as well, but I used Brigović & Radoš out of convenience. The reorientation of the force seems plausible enough given citations #62-63 contain the same thing and considering the starting point of the Operation Maslenica described in Balkan Battlegrounds. All these were presented in a neutral manner, specifying dates, toponyms and movements without value judgements
  • Cite #60 (ditto) is used to reference killings in Škabrnja and Nadin in the immediate aftermath of the capture referenced by #59. I used formulation "... in what later became known as the Škabrnja massacre" reflecting current title of the event described in another article. I assumed the "massacre" is not disputed because it is not contested in the Škabrnja massacre article - but I am aware it might be (but need not necessarily be) a sticking point. Someplace on wiki (don't remember exactly where, but I think it was a WP Death guideline) there was instruction that term "massacre" may be used only if two independent sources use the term to qualify an event and I found it here (Mojzes) and here (Vickers) and here (Kent)
  • Cite #61 (Thomas & Mikulan) is a non-Croatian source
  • Cites #62-63 see above at #59
  • Cite #64 reports on existence of a JNA plan to drive against Pirovac near Zadar and that the plan was never carried out. This seems plausible as militaries generally plan things and the plan was made sufficiently close to the ceasefire of 3 January 1992 not to have sufficient time to be implemented. The info is presented as a narrative without an analysis though to ensure neutrality (i.e. saying it was unrealistic, or that this or another result must have followed)
  • Cites #65-66 are non-Croatian sources
  • Cite #67 references capture of a high ground adjacent to the Adriatic Highway presented as timeline only, except for statement that this improved security along the highway for users of the highway. Even though this represents an analysis carried by a Croatian source, I believe it is non-controversial and fairly plausible that capture of high ground is beneficial to whoever captures it.
  • Cites #68-69 are non-Croatian sources
  • In summation: I tried to use as many non-Croatian sources as possible, but there are few of them. I used Croatian sources where I had to to establish timeline, making efforts to avoid analysis and value judgements. Do you consider any of those need tweaking, rewording or outright removal?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's ideal, and I would certainly be looking for some Yugoslav/Serbian sources on the battle, as well as any crimes committed by Croats (if any) for this article to meet the A-class criteria. I think given you have used non-Croatian sources for most of the pithy analysis, and the largely factual/descriptive use of the Croatian-sourced material, it is ok for GAN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking good, I'm just going to go through the prose and MOS stuff, and will c/e any obvious stuff. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest you spell out SAO in full in the lead and first mention in the body. Hovering over the link doesn't help because SAO Krajina is the name of the article. Done
    • Done.
  • "ethnic tensions worsened" (in Background). Suggest you say between whom (for those that are not familiar). Done
    • Done.
  • suggest you use the linked "Slavonia" rather than the piped "eastern Croatia", as I for one, have always found that appellation confusing. Surely the southern coastline is also eastern Croatia? Done
    • I used the "eastern Croatia" because I wanted to cover Baranja region as well. Slavonia and Baranja are collectively referred to as the "eastern Croatia" in Croatia. The southern coastline is never referred to locally as the eastern Croatia, but as the "southern Croatia", at least in Croatia itself. Still, I realise that this might not necessarily be so elsewhere and is certainly not that intuitive, so reworded as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reserve force lacked weapons? Do you mean military weapons? Surely they had some weapons? What did they have, pistols only, or was it that they lacked machineguns, mortars etc? Needs clarification. Done
    • The Balkan Battlegrounds says "many personnel probably did not have weapons". That reflects the situation that prior to the Battle of the Barracks, there were few weapons. The same source (p.86) says that "by August 1991, [Croatia] managed to procure fewer than 30,000 small arms [...] to augment the 15,000 weapons in [police] stocks". The reserve troops were largely left to get weapons for themselves through personal contacts or black market, especially in early 1991 - as late as September 1991 when the ZNG started to mobilise, active troops were partially unarmed (Miškulin p.339 cites an example of the 2nd Battalion of the 122nd Brigade comprising 484 troops, only 275 out of which were armed and then only with small arms (largely Zastava M48s and hunting rifles, few AK-47s). I realise by now that "lacked weapons" is quite imprecise and does not say if they were nearly fully armed by contemporary standards of proper armies or if a portion of the troops carried museum exhibits or no weapons at all. I rephrased The reserve police were grouped into 16 battalions and 10 independent companies, but lacked weapons. into The reserve police were grouped into 16 battalions and 10 independent companies. The police were armed with small arms only, but a portion of the force was unarmed.
  • I suggest the term "riot" is quite accurate in regard to the May (piped link) "protests". Magaš calls both the Zadar and Krajina actions "riots", no reason I can think of to avoid using that word to describe both. Done
    • Reworded.
  • what sort of things did Barešić and his force sabotage? Done
    • I have no idea, Ružić does not specify, but I'll check and get back to you on that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found nothing specific, except that the unit consisted of 12 men per this article. Ružić notes that Barešić died in unclear circumstances, and the article detailing 12-men strong unit, as well as this and this and this one indicate that official version of his death was that the unit was ambushed by a 20-strong unit of SAO Krajina special police and that RSK documents captured in 1995 indicate no such ambush took place. Instead, it is proposed by a private investigators Mario Barišić (former military police and prosecution witness in Lora and Kuline trials and Stipe Jukić, retired SIS (Security-Intelligence Service of the Republic of Croatia) officer that Barešić was killed by his own men in a conspiracy to prevent Barešić from exposing Yugoslav secret police agents who moved to Croatia after the beginning of the war under the guise of communist-era Croatian political dissidents. The investigators indicated that the report on the incident, prepared by Josip Perković, was falsified. In 2012, the investigators filed a formal complaint with the police and the State Attorney's Office launched a formal inquiry. Apparently, no results of the inquiry (if any) have been published at this time. -- I'll try to sum this up a bit and add it to the aftermath, but I'm still unaware what Barešić's unit actually did in terms of the "few sabotages" specifically noted by Ružić.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm leaning towards adding the Barešić info noted here to the Miro Barešić article because it appears (to me at least) to have little to do with the topic of the article. As far as the type of the sabotage work carried out in the area (not necessarily by Barešić), Ružić says on p.409 that number of sabotages increased in April, both in Zadar where for instance an electrical transformer substation was damaged by explosives by a saboteur acting on behalf of SAO Krajina, and in the city's hinterland, where unknown persons cut down telephone poles using chainsaws, severing communication links between JNA garrisons in Benkovac and Knin. Ružić claims a "considerable" number of injuries and damage caused by such actions. I copyedited the "prelude" to note the sabotages as an element of the overall situation in the Zadar region, and now I'm wondering if the article would be better off without the Barešić sentence or not. Could you please advise on that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Mladic was a Colonel (to which rank he was promoted in 1986 or so) or Brigade General/Brigadier in August 1991, not a Lieutenant Colonel. See, for example [5], p.969. Done
  • The initial explanation of the 9th Corps plan indicates there was a main advance against Vodice, with three supporting lines of advance. But when the article goes into troops to tasks, it talks about only one subsidiary advance by the 180th Bde. Needs clarification. Done
    • The Sinj and Drniš advances were assigned to comparably small elements of the 221st Brigade ordered to lift ZNG siege of JNA barracks in Sinj and near Drniš (in villages of Žitnić and Tepljuh). Added this info to the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to state that Mladic commanded the 9th Corps, but also that Vuković commanded it. Needs clarification. Done
  • Who was Tuličić? Commander of one of the brigades? Done
  • suggest you rewrite "In that period, the JNA's efforts were concentrated on the Battle of Šibenik—the ZNG successfully defended the city, even though it had to pull out of Drniš, leaving it to the JNA to capture on 23 September—and on an advance towards Sinj." It is very clunky. Done
  • Was the blockade lifted or withdrawn? It is unclear who did what to lift it. If it was the Navy, I suggest using "withdrawn" for clarity. Done
  • which barracks did the JNA forces break out from? Done
  • this "They involved Vuković, commander of the JNA garrison in Zadar, Colonel Trpko Zdravkovski, and Colonel Momčilo Perišić, as well as HV Major Krešo Jakovina (representing the General Staff of the HV), Tuličić (representing the regional defence command), Ivo Livljanić and Domagoj Kero (representing the city of Zadar)." is too long, suggest breaking up the negotiators by warring faction or even by military and civilians. Done
  • in what way was the bridge capture "unauthorised"? Done
    • I assume it means "not ordered/permitted by applicable superior officer(s)". The source (Balkan battlegrounds p.103) says "The 9th Corps' unauthorized capture of the Maslenica bridge, preempting the start of the barracks war, had already achieved most of the corps's primary goal." Since I only assume this, I used the same expression as the source. Would you suggest some other expression instead?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • artillery which was largely left in place? In the barracks or in Croatia with the JNA or SAO Krajina TO? Done
  • I think the map of the Zadar area needs uncluttering, or dividing into two maps. It is very busy and it is hard to see what is what. Done
    • I removed a couple of toponyms that are adequately described in terms of position relative to another map item (e.g. village of Kruševo, located near Obrovac) and enlarged the map a bit to improve its reliability. Of course, further improvements are possible, but this is meant as a stopgap measure at least.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review completed, placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I expect to address the above GAN-related issues by tomorrow - I'll start right away, but I suspect I won't have time to finish before a today's RL commitment yanks me away from editing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use your best judgement about the saboteurs, it is definitely not a war-winner. Great article, and good timely responses to my queries. Well done, promoting.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Zadar&oldid=1206188786"