Talk:Dalj massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for GA review. I should have my full review up by later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • For an article of this length, the lead should be a bit longer. Maybe a sentence summarizing the background, and another couple of sentences summarizing the Aftermath section?
   • Background, "Croatian Serbs in the eastern Slavonia established the SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia (SAO SBWS)." Maybe a brief explanation of what the SAO SBWS was? -> "...established the SAO SBWS, a ...[brief explanation]".
   • Timeline, "While Croatian authorities had no information on fate of civilians in Dalj" What is this trying to say?
   • Timeline, "the Croatian Serb representatives admitted to killing" Representatives to what? Admitted to who?
   • Aftermath, "The events of 1 August 1991 were extensively covered by German media at the time, leading to a public outcry over the massacre." What was the result of the public outcry? When did the ICTY trial start?
   • War Crimes, " Enes Taso" or "Taco" (see difference between first and second sentence of third paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Is index.hr (the first item under "News reports" in the References section") a reliable source? The article we have says its a tabloid with a reputation for yellow journalism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • No images in the Aftermath section? Maybe one in the subsection of one of the men charged with war crimes? Or in the first part of the section of the area discussed around this time?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few prose issues, one reference question and a minor image issue. Nothing major though! Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this review. I have tried to address your concerns - Could you please take another look at those modifications?

In terms of the public outcry and its results, the sources do not say explicitly what was the result. I can only assume it contributed to increasingly supportive stance Germany held towards Croatia, but this is nowhere to be explicitly linked and would likely constitute WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH violations. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Modifications are looking good. I think at this point I am just waiting on the expansion of the lead (the first point above). With regard to the German public outcry, why not just add another sentence of something like "Germany was supportive of Croatia's independence efforts and would later become one of the first countries (the first?) to officially recognize it as a nation." and let the reader draw their own conclusions? Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanded a bit as advised. Could you please have another look at those and suggest improvements?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for taking a couple of days to get back to this. Thanks for the quick (and quality!) work! Everything looks good to me, so I am now passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)