Talk:Operation Jackal

More informative infobox?

Perhaps this article would benefit from a more informative infobox that summarized the forces (armour, artillery, etc) available on both sides, and indeed listed the outcome of the operation as one might expect for such a box. Overall the article could similarly benefit from additional overview to assist the reader who may be unfamiliar with the acronyms and historic details. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would be nice, but there are simply no WP:RS on that type of detail. All acronyms are already provided with spelled out versions of particular names at the first instance.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At least the infobox can spell out who won, it's usual for mil op infoboxes. And anything else that can be done to make the article more comprehensible will be an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Readability

Here's an example:

The HV concluded that the JNA offensive operations of April and May 1992 capturing Kupres and much of the Neretva River valley south of Mostar were aimed at capturing or threatening Croatian Port of Ploče and possibly Split, leading the Croatian leadership to deploy the HV to the area and assign General Janko Bobetko as the commanding officer of the "Southern Front" theatre of operations encompassing the area of Operation Jackal.

The quoted sentence has 71 words and at least 7 verbs. Its Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is 33.0 (i.e. extremely few people can understand it), and its Flesch Reading Ease is 0% (i.e. extremely unreadable). I don't recall ever seeing a 0% on this measure before. I tried splitting it into 5 short sentences, giving an F-K Grade Level of 10.5 (i.e. a grade 10 school pupil can read it) and reading ease of 46.6%.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scan the article for other sentences with complex structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I will start reviewing this one in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Start of review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   *I think parts of the lead should be rearranged as it doesn't flow quite right; most of the 1st paragraph relates to the battle and afterwards, while the 2nd paragraph mainly relates to the background. If you move the entire 2nd paragraph to follow the sentence in the first paragraph that ends ...from 7–26 June 1992, I think that would make the reading sequence more logical.

   *Also in the lead, you refer to an offensive and battle. From my reading of the article, Operation Jackal is more an offensive.

   *The areas were subsequently named the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK) and, after declaring its intention to integrate with Serbia, denounced as a rebellion by the Government of Croatia. Needs revising as unclear what was integrating with Serbia (obviously it was the RSK, but the its is suggestive of the Government of Croatia). Also, was the RSK openly supported by Serbia? A sentence to this effect would provide context for this (which appears later in the background section): ...but Serbia continued to support the RSK.

   *a further 1,500 – 2,000...: Not sure if a spaced dash is the one to use for a range of numbers.

   *...to stop the expected JNA/VRS offensive and regain the lost territory. Suggest replacing lost territory with Mostar or area around Mostar for sake of clarity.

   *Fixed as suggested (this issue and all of the above)

   *The HV and the HVO committed 4,670 troops to Operation Jackal.: Do we know how many were from the HV as opposed to the HVO?

   *No, unfortunately sources do not provide that info.

   *On 11 June, the Mostar HVO forces...: From the prelude section, I thought Mostar was largely held by the JNA/VRS? Do the HVO forces in Mostar count towards the 4,670 troops?

   *Yes they do, as indicated in the article (HVO units drawn from Mostar). JNA held parts of Mostar around its barracks (several) and a heliport. Still, the bulk of the force, especially the HV, was initially deployed in and around Čapljina.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   *Duplicate links: Croatian language, Army of Republika Srpska (both in the lead) and 4th Guards Brigade (Croatia)

   *Fixed.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The main issues detected relate to continuity, clarity and context. The GA toolbox doesn't want to work for me today, so I can't check disambig links or the external links at the moment. I also made a few minor tweaks to the text as I went along. Zawed (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll try to address the issues you raised right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to address your concerns. The dab/checklinks tool seems to be acting up intermittently over the last few days, but just now I managed to access them. There's no telling what's going on there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me, so I'm passing as a GA. Checklist has been updated. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)