Talk:Operation Alfa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination within a couple of days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, the article is fairly well written, however there are few problems - I trust those can be fixed easily:

In terms of prose, there are several awkward sentence structures. For instance the very first sentence in the lead should have in early October 1942 at the end of the sentence, and a similar problem exists in several sentences elsewhere in the article. Overall, I believe the article would benefit considerably from a thorough copyedit. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests could be of assistance.
- Did some copy editing myself as it appears that it would take a while for a copy edit request to be fulfilled. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are few sentences like "According to incomplete data, around 543 Catholic and Muslim civilians were massacred on the pretense that they harbored and aided the Partisans" which are taken verbatim or near-verbatim from cited sources. It would be necessary to rephrase them in order to comply with wiki's copyvio policies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addressed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should provide a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Since this is a relatively short article, not much need be added, maybe just a sentence or two on the aftermath/military consequences and any information added regarding the following three points below.
- Done. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant issue in terms of this nomination appears to be coverage of the article - specifically the "Operation" section of the article. The first sentence indicates that the Italian troops took part in the operation, and even suggests that their role was primary as no other force is specified by the sentence, yet the section has no detail on actual Italian involvement. If the Italians took part in the operation, something should be said about that - Did they provide arms and supplies only, did they coordinate or command the overall Axis forces, or did they commit troops? If troops were committed, their number would be ideal to have here, if not at least specify if it was a token force, or comparable to number of Chetniks or a larger force?
- Sources aren't that specific on Italian military involvement. Tomasevich (1975, pg. 233), the most detailed on this operation, says Roatta provided "some arms and promises of actions". Nothing is said of their units. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there was no Italian involvement beyond materiel support, the article should reflect that. Ditto for Partisan units. I'll have a look if there's any credible source for any of those just to verify and get back to you on the matter - today or tomorrow at the latest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Italian troops were deployed, and quite likely a Partisan brigade as well. 1) There's this source (its contents appear to be accessible on the google books, but there appears to be a transcript of the relevant chapter here). That source indicates inclusion of some Italian troops and link-up of Chetnik and Italian forces in Prozor as well as further details on routes of advance. 2) A bit more specific source (albeit, not as good as the published book, but nonetheless pointing towards further research) is this one specifying the 10th Herzegovina brigade of Partisans deployed along a 60km front, Italian VI Army corps (4,000 soldiers) consisting of the 29th Bersaglieri battalion and 2nd battalion of the 94th Regiment from Division "Messina" (sourced also to "Le Operazioni delle Unita italiane in Jugoslavia 1941-1943 (Rome: Ministero della Difesa stato Maggiore dell' Esercito, 1978), pp.211-212" in 18 Infantry Division Messina article). Involvement of the Bersaglieri, specifically 29th battalion of the 4th Bersaglieri regiment is confirmed in this source (page 212). For now, I would accept the 1) at face value and 2) with great caution, but I imagine it might be possible to investigate further where the named units were in early October 1942, and it is quite likely that someone wrote and published about it. Again, this is just a proposal for 1 additional source (1) and a possible direction for further search (2). I'll keep on looking though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Details on size of the Italian and Partisan forces, including numbers of Partisan battalions and the (10th) brigade deployed, as well as their movements, dates of Italian artillery attack on Prozor, and provides some more details on coordination between Italians and Chetniks, citing civilian testimonies and Partisan reports is available in here. An article by Goldstein, largely based on the book is found here and here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This particular source also gives an estimate on Italian troops strength, confirms corps number, and specifies Chetnik units deployed, as well as Domobran units supporting the operation along with the air force. With additional estimates provided here. I suggest specifying all figure estimates as number ranges (to prevent future edit wars) in addition to specifying the civilian casualty figure specified by Tomasevich as likely the most reliable one. I trust you have now at your disposal sufficient reliable sources to provide reasoning for the undertaking of the operation, its initial goal, names of units involved, principal dates and movement, date of termination and stated possible cause(s) for termination of the operation and withdrawal - so I guess you're now set to add what's missing, fix the close paraphrasing and we'll be wrapping this up shortly!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've expanded the article. Please take a look. Some quotations admittedly sound awkward. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This addition appears fine - I did some minor copyedits though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the operation coverage - were there any identifiable Partisan units involved or not? How many took part in the battle? Were there any notable Partisan commanders in the area or the general area?
- No, the sources used do not mention any specific Partisan commanders, units, or size. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes civilian casualties in some detail, yet provides no information whether there were any combat between Partisans and Chetniks or Italians in the area at the time. Did the operation entail any actual combat or was it limited to the civilians as described in the article?
- Most likely given its intent, but again the sources aren't detailed on this. The operation is largely notable because during it the Chetniks carried out one of their "worst outrages" (as Tomasevich (2001, pg. 258) put it). --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, perhaps a pushpin map fixing position of Prozor (in relation to present day borders, or some other frame of reference) could be added to the article (and geographic coordinates) to allow readers a better insight into geographic location of the events.
- Added location map. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this is a fine article requiring just a bit more information on the operation itself to make it comprehensive and fully informative. The remaining issues are relatively minor (especially the map, which is more of a suggestion). I'll place the nomination on hold to allow for improvements needed to meet GA criteria. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Background section should have a further, very short paragraph preceding the existing one. As it stands now, the section assumes that the reader knows what the situation was in 1942 in the area, providing limited context. Please add two or three sentences explaining that the Axis invaded Yugoslavia, formed occupation zones, set up puppet states and that insurgencies occurred, with Chetniks, in effect, ultimately allying themselves with the Axis powers. A similar paragraph exists in the Background section of the Operation Southeast Croatia for reference. This one need not be that long, but readers navigating to this article from categories/templates or articles providing no context or limited context would benefit from this information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks to Gorani, Komar and Drežnica need be disambiguated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of the actual combat operations, that you just wrote about, should be provided in the lead section (along with all its present contents) per WP:LEAD.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer cutting back on direct quotations in the article prose - reporting what the sources say in your own words. This is not to say that they should be avoided altogether, but please consider which direct quotations might as well be represented as indirect speech (see: WP:QUOTEFARM). This is no significant obstacle to GA, but the article might improve stylistically.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally identify languages used in Dizdar and Goldstein sources as Croatian rather than Serbo-Croatian, but this is not a point relevant to the GA review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you're almost there. I trust we'll be wrapping this up shortly. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your swift response and thank you for addressing GA criteria related issues. Once again I urge you to take time to review the direct quotes used in the article to improve it further. However, since that is not a part of GAC, there is no reason to warrant further holding of the nomination - and I'll pass the nomination now. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]