Talk:Kragujevac massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewer. The article is burdened by unnecessary event descriptions found in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article (linked in), then use of unreliable references (Cohen's Serbia's ... deceit of history).--bez potpisa (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you'd been asked for a second opinion. With less than 100 edits on WP globally, and no GAs to your credit, you do not have the experience to know what is necessary in a GA. You are trolling. Stop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@KanteP: The context of the events is required to get an idea of the subject. Also I clearly see that the data is not too off the subject, it is within the context. Per the source issue you've mentioned, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History, is a reliable source, it is printed by an university press and has an ISBN number, so it is not a self published work. Thanks for taking a look on the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:

Unreliable Cohen's Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History

As author. Not educated as a historian, no much needed languages knowledge (German, Serbian), apparently selling his name to "the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery." (Almuly, see the Philip J. Cohen article) Almuly "asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed".

Book content From the Philip J. Cohen article:

• Cohen's book belonged to "the current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly"(D. Reinhartz);
• (the book) was the culmination of a two-track strategy by the Croatian media aimed at "damage control" regarding Croatian atrocities against Serbs ( M. Živković);
• "a controversial pro-Croatian revision of Serbian history"(B. MacDonald);
• is the book "in which censorious zeal trumps balanced scholarship". (D. Djordjevic);
• "In fact, the Cohen's book teems with forgeries, half-truths, incompetent use of historical sources, overstrained theses and ill-intended inferences." (M. Svircevic);
• criticised Cohen for drawing heavily on contemporary press accounts to demonstrate the "fascism" of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and failing to take into account "the omnipresent censorship and manipulation" in the Nedić-controlled newspapers. (K. Buchenau);
• Cohen's book contains the false claim (A. Mirkovic)--bez potpisa (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is just cherry-picking of criticisms made of the book, there are plenty of positive things said at Cohen's article. This is starting to look a lot like trolling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead;
  • was the mass murder of between 2,778 and 2,794 mostly Serb men and boys in the city of Kragujevac by German soldiers; I suggest rewording it as "was the mass murder of 2,778–2,794 Serb men and boys in the city of Kragujevac by German soldiers" or a similar one. The former one is a bit confusing, isn't catchy.
    • Done, but left "mostly" there, as they weren't all Serbs
  • 70 male Jews and communists that had been arrested; I doubt the use of "that", they are humans, right?
    • Of course, who. Done.
    • Also were there seventy men part of the prior 422 or this is a separate count? Check the use of "and" in the sentence
      • Added a bit to clarify they were a different group.
• Section 1;
  • Yugoslavia came to share a border with the Third Reich; "a border"? Which border, a part of border or the whole?
    • Fixed.
  • Bulgaria joined the Pact, Yugoslav government conditionally signed the Pact; are the names of these pacts available?
    • They all signed the Tripartite Pact, which is linked.
  • Mention the position of "General Dušan Simović", perhaps Chief of the General Staff
    • Done, chief of the air force.
  • the communist-led, multi-ethnic Partisans and the royalist, Serbian nationalist Chetniks; are these two or three forces?
    • added a comma.
  • Serbian nationalist is over linked
    • Fixed.
  • Mention something about Josip Broz Tito; something on his military role (former chief etc.)
• Section 2.1;
  • prompted the Germans to request reinforcements from other parts of the continent; did these reinforcements belong to the Germans, if not what were the friendly foreign nations that helped the Germans.
    • clarified, Germans.
  • Link Field Marshal
    • Done.
  • Link and italicize "Wehrmacht"
    • Done.
  • Modern equivalent for General der Gebirgstruppe
    • Done.
  • three German occupation divisions; but only two are discussed in the later sentences
    • Added.
• Section 2.2;
  • He ordered III. Battalion of the 749th Infantry Regiment, 717th Infantry Division; there is a bit confusion, did III. Battalion of both 749 and 717 fight are only of 749, and 717 was different criteria.
    • The regiment was part of the division, clarified.
  • 717th Infantry Division is over linked
    • Fixed.
  • Modern equivalent for "Hauptmann"
    • Done.
• Section 2.3;
  • Better to abbreviate the units from second mention
    • Not sure which one you're referring to here, I think I got them all.
• Section 3.1;
  • I. Battalion of the 724th Infantry Regiment, 704th Infantry Division; same comment from the first point of section 2.2
    • I think I fixed this too.
  • Major Paul König; why italics for the rank, that is not a German name
    • For consistency with the other German ranks, but I get your point. Removed.
• Section 3.2;
  • rank of Marisav Petrović
    • The source doesn't give that information.
• Section 4; All good, well done.
• Section 5;
  • is the park built after the bodies were excavated or just built with bodies in the graves?
    • From the website it appears they weren't exhumed after the war, and I can't find any reliable source that says one way or the other.
  • the dates regarding the lives of the poets are out of context
    • I agree, take out.
  • An English poet, Richard Berengarten; I think "," may be dropped
    • Done.
• Images;
  • Execution of serbs in Kragujevac on 21 10 1941.jpg; has no date, author, source, permission etc. details in the summary section
    • Looks dubious, I've replaced it with a pic of Bohme from the Bundesarchiv.
• One dab link exists
  • Fixed.
• 15.3% confidence, violation unlikely.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna. Thanks for your review. All done (including Nortonius' one as well) I think. Here are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nortonius

• In the "Prelude" section, why are only two of three divisions identified? Is it because only they were involved in the subject of this article? I think it would probably be simplest to identify all three here, even if only two were involved.

• Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the same section, under "Clash at Gornji Milanovac": According to the military district commander in Kragujevac, Hauptmann (Captain) Otto von Bischofhausen, the casualties of ten German dead and 26 wounded were incurred while III/749th Infantry Regiment was clearing Gornji Milanovac on 14–17 October. These seem to be the same casualties that were incurred on 28 September: is there some confusion here?

• We mucked around with this section a bit, because the three sources accounts differ in details. I think I've clarified it now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Under "Kraljevo massacre" you have Generalmajor (Brigadier General): the existing style expects "Brigadier General" to be linked, but is it right? Generalmajor points to Major General in English. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Before Germany normalised their rank structure with NATO (ie during WWII), Generalmajor was equivalent to a brigadier general. It is one of the reasons I persist with German ranks in articles, despite opposition from some quarters.

• Under "Aftermath" you have The formula of 100 executions for one soldier killed and 50 executions for one soldier wounded was reduced by one half in February 1943 ...: can a formula be reduced? The present wording also makes me wonder if a soldier can be half-wounded. I think something like "The number of hostages executed per German soldiers killed and wounded was halved ..." would be better. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• changed it to ratio, I think that works.

• Under "Legacy" you have In addition to the museum, there are several monuments within the park; the "Interrupted Flight" monument ...: do you list all the monuments? I believe that the semi colon doesn't work here, so I would suggest changing to something like "monuments within the park, namely ..." if you do list them all, or "monuments within the park, including ..." if you don't. In fact the latter would also avoid offering a hostage to fortune, in the event that further monuments are added. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone with the latter.

• You'll probably notice I've added many non-breaking spaces: this is per MOS:NBSP, but I haven't combed the entire article to ensure all are present and correct. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, spaces aren't a strong suit for me.

I'll add more comments as or if I have any. Nortonius (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC) That's it for now. Nortonius (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nortonius, all done, these are my edits. Thanks for taking a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

All looks good to me now, well done on what looks to be a very sound, balanced treatment of a complex subject. I knew nothing about it before so I'm pleased to have read it, grim though it is. I'll try to have a further look at non-breaking spaces then, but for me this GAN is over, and I'll leave it to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga to complete what I think ought to be a commendable pass. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now done a thorough – but I can't guarantee exhaustive – review of spaces, and made them non-breaking where I thought necessary. I hesitate to offer advice to someone who's been as productive as you, Peacemaker67, but I've found it useful to add non-breaking spaces routinely as I work through articles. For one thing it stops anyone later saying they're needed, which has happened to me before and suddenly landed me with a heap of fiddly editing, and for another it helps in noticing other details that need sprucing up, as I found here, just to give one example. I'd be interested to know if you decide to nominate this as a FAC. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This will probably go through Milhist A-Class review next, then FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic content

Discussion about the merits of multiple reviewers, not germane to the review

@Nortonius: Please hold on, you're not asked for any second opinion. Please you're messing up the review, it creates confusion to the nom. Another user has already started to troll the page. Please be patient. I'll take care of your comments. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I was only trying to help, per the standard GAN template: "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." In other words it is not necessary to ask for a second opinion, and they are invited by the template. I have no intention of stepping on anyone's toes, and additional comments from other editors are quite normal. Are you quite sure you want me to leave it alone? In my own experience, having more pairs of eyes on a review is a good thing, and I have taken note of the things you have already covered. I have seen the unhelpful intervention, and by "trying to help" I mean that this looks like being a quality GA on a complex subject, and I merely wanted to make my opinion clear by becoming involved. Regards, Nortonius (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nortonius: I am not against your comments, but actually it would confuse the nominator against resolving the comments of different editors (both reviewing at the same time), so it is better that after I complete my review, you are welcome to have yours. So that there it goes smoothly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As you wish, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, but, while I can assure you that such comments are quite normal, as I said, I think the obvious quality of this article suggests that Peacemaker67 is unlikely to be confused, so long as comments from different editors do not conflict. I have had multiple editors comment on GANs that I have made in the past, and it only helped.[1] When you have completed your review, as the first reviewer per the GAN template, there should be no need for further comments, and that's not how it works. But, as you wish. Nortonius (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nortonius your constructive comments are welcome, I'm sure they will complement Krishna's review. I only objected to the other editor getting involved, as they were following/trolling me from a dispute elsewhere. I will also address any comments you have to make. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, but I think I might do best to hold off until your first reviewer has finished: if Krishna then holds off passing the article explicitly so that I can have a further look, then I'll do that. Although that would of course delay a pass, and I'm not suggesting he do it. On the other hand you may wish to discuss this matter directly with Krishna, and if you do then I'll see what I can do if anything changes. But the bottom line is I don't want to create any upset here, for you or Krishna, as I'm very drama-averse. Regards, Nortonius (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nortonius: You're free to go now. Any comments for PM? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I'll have a look but I'll try to be very quick, as I don't want to hold up a pass under these circumstances. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)