Talk:Operation Summer '95/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reviewing this article --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (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 comments

The article is very well-referenced with citations to reliable sources. It deals with the subject comprehensively and gives readers who aren't familiar with the Balkan wars, like myself, a good idea on the background of this particular operation and the broader war(s) that it was a part of. The battle itself and its aftermath is also described in great detail. The article currently appears stable and is sufficiently illustrated by relevant images with no apparent copyright issues.

The article is on the cusp of passing, it just needs some tweaks to its grammar and some sentences may need to be reworded to become less ambiguous. I will list the specific issues, most of which are minor, in a separate subsection tomorrow.

The article reads quite neutrally, I just have one query about the use of the term "ethnic cleansing." As I stated above, I'm not very familiar with this topic area. Is this the acceptable term that's used on wikipedia? I've looked at some other articles in the topic area and it is indeed used quite often, but none of the articles I read were GA's. If the nominator can just clarify this for me, then there should be no problems regarding neutrality. Overall, this article has been very informative. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for picking up this review. I'll do my best to address any concerns you might have right away.

Yes, the term is quite acceptable - it is already in use in peer-reviewed articles Operation Winter '94 and Operation Storm (maybe more, but I'm aware of these). The two articles both passed a GA-review and WP:MILHIST A-class review afterwards. The A-class reviews may be found here and here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought so, just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lead

... in the western Bosnia and Herzegovina. -- Article "the" appears unnecessary.
The operation was carried out in 25–29 July 1995. --Should "in" be "on" or "between"?
... encountered initially strong resistance of the 5,500 VRS 2nd Krajina Corps -- The first two bolded words should be reversed as "initially encountered" for better flow, and "of" should be "from" unless the article "the" is written behind "strong." As for the the last bolded part, this is somewhat confusing. I think you're trying to say there were 5,500 VRS soldiers, so should it be "5,500-strong VRS 2nd Krajina Corps"?
The HV/HVO pushed the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) back capturing about 1,600 square kilometres (620 square miles) of territory, intercepting Knin–Drvar road—critical for supply of the self-declared Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). -- Should this be slightly reworded to say The HV/HVO pushed the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) back, capturing about 1,600 square kilometres (620 squaremiles) of territory and consequently intercepting Knin–Drvar road—a critical supply route of the self-declared Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). If my suggested changes are not the best, obviously you could make separate ones. I just think that sentence needs to be improved, but don't find it necessary to split it into two sentences, although that would be fine too.
primary goal—draw VRS units from the besieged city of Bihać—but -- Should "draw" be "to draw" or "drawing"?
Operation Summer '95 was launched in response to renewed attacks of the VRS and the RSK military on the Bihać pocket ... -- "of" should be "by."
The area was viewed as strategic to Croatian military effort by the HV General Staff as it presented an obstacle to supply of the RSK ... -- "to Croatian" should be "to the Croatian," "to supply" should "to the supply."
... if the Bihać pocket were overran by the RSK or the VRS. -- "were overran" should be "was overran".
Amongst the United States, France and the United Kingdom, there was division regarding how to protect the area. -- This should be reversed to read "There was division amongst the United States, France and the United Kingdom regarding how to protect the area." --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended (largely) as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background: No issues with this section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude: ... as French President François Mitterrand discouraged any military intervention, greatly helping the Serb war effort. -- Not a prose issue, but this should be attributed, as in "according to source(s)". --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle: No issues with this section.

Operation timeline: VRS defences were well prepared all along the frontline attacked by the HV and the HVO, and especially so in the Bosansko Grahovo area, where fortifications, shelters and covered trenches were prepared in several lines of defences and obstacles, including minefields. -- This sentence is kind of confusing, particularly the first part. Maybe break it into two sentences or reword it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Women and children started to evacuate to Yugoslavia ... -- Just curious, what does Yugoslavia refer to here? I thought it was dissolved by 1995.

Well, the article speaks of 1995, but that reference was made to FR Yugoslavia. I removed pipe from the wikilink to clarify.

That's about it. The article is actually pretty well-written. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to address all the issues you raised. Thank you very much for the review, I trust it genuinely helped the article quality to improve.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been taken care of as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for writing a good article! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]