Talk:Operation Vrbas '92/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
- Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
|
- Disambig links: No issues.
- Reference check: OK
Comments: The article has a lot of minor prose issues with wording that stand out that need a thorough copy edit. Example Specific Prose fix needed: "the area with a small number of planes which caused". Some of the context for the battle, namely the resolutions are completely foreign and are necessary to understand the topic. In particular, the Vance Plan and the Graz Agreement are mere jargon at this point. It prevents the otherwise "self-contained" part of the article from being realized. Why no casualty listings? This is rather important to a military article. I personally believe that the aftermath section should include these figures and their estimations if they can be sourced properly. This should be part of the "focused" aspect of the GA criteria. I am also concerned about the lack of the command structure details, and the deployments, but I do not know if that can hold it back by itself at this point. It is borderline, but I'll place it on hold for a week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article. I added the clarifications requested above and copyedited the part of the prose you pointed out. However, the casualty figures or even estimates are virtually nowhere to be found in reliable sources. Since the data does not appear to be reported, it is impossible for it to be included in the article. Therefore I believe this particular objection is not actionable (see WP:GACN item 3).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is an essay, while helpful, I can make a stronger case that "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." is something that can be outright dangerous if followed strictly because there is no absolute proof that something like this would not be estimated or known. Though I did see some links on the Serbian Wikipedia, I can't read it. The book CIA - Balkan battlegrounds 311-321 did not seem to cover it either. I doubt I can fail for it, but I suppose if the figures are unreleased I may have no choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I checked the Serbian wiki article - by itself it mentions no casualty figures at all. One of the two references in the article (Praljak (2)) deals with Bosnian Posavina (i.e. Operation Corridor 92) while the second one (Marijan (1)), while mentioning this particular battle, does not give the casualty figures. Marijan source is used in English wiki article as well (March 2000 one) - I used the version of the source published in English in this case (the Serbian wiki relied on the version published in Croatian). Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm tapped out on trying to find a fault with it. So that means its reasonable that if the two of us couldn't fix that issue then it may not possible - as a result, I can't hold it against you and I'll pass the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I checked the Serbian wiki article - by itself it mentions no casualty figures at all. One of the two references in the article (Praljak (2)) deals with Bosnian Posavina (i.e. Operation Corridor 92) while the second one (Marijan (1)), while mentioning this particular battle, does not give the casualty figures. Marijan source is used in English wiki article as well (March 2000 one) - I used the version of the source published in English in this case (the Serbian wiki relied on the version published in Croatian). Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is an essay, while helpful, I can make a stronger case that "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." is something that can be outright dangerous if followed strictly because there is no absolute proof that something like this would not be estimated or known. Though I did see some links on the Serbian Wikipedia, I can't read it. The book CIA - Balkan battlegrounds 311-321 did not seem to cover it either. I doubt I can fail for it, but I suppose if the figures are unreleased I may have no choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)