Talk:Operation Winter '94/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PRODUCER (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 March 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 (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose is good. Just a slight error at start: "in the western Bosnia and Herzegovina".
The operation took place after the Washington agreement yet HZ/R H-B is listed as a belligerent. Not only a "Croatian victory" given Washington.

Believe it or not, I'm very happy this issue came up. I was completely in the dark what to place here - obviously the Herzeg-Bosnia and Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina came to an end of some sort or another and the Federation was established. So far so good. Still, the situation on the ground was that there was no army of the federation rather separate ARBiH and HVO right to the end of the war in 1995. How should this be handled? Option one is continued used of RBiH/HRHB icons in 1994-1995 and option two is use of FBiH icon for the period. Mind you I'm not bent on either, the present configuration is leftover from a previous incarnation of the article. Admittedly it looks suspect but I was unsure and thought to let that be discussed in a GAR rather than in an edit war. What do you propose? Are there any similar situations already FA or GA, or is that type of reference not necessary?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qualification of Croatian victory or Croatian/FBiH victory will invariably reflect solution of the above point.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked per yesterday's discussion. I've yet to look up the flag though. Leap 1 is unchanged as it included HV and VRS only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a WP:RS for the flag here. There are other examples of use of the same or similar design ([1], [2], [3] [4] - but I would not call them RS exactly, DW is another matter altogether, especially since it clearly and unambiguously identifies the design). Still, just to make things a bit more disorganized, there is another standard here using the shoulder patch on a Croatian tricolour (far right in the image).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement over the previous version. We should work further on solving this particular detail, but I think the main concern is addressed so this point is satisfied for now. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the next stop is MILHIST ACR, so we'll have a good chance to revisit the issue there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some significant details are lacking. Both the RSK's background and actions of ethnic cleansing are provided, background information is provided for RS, but not its ethnic cleansing while neither is provided for the HZ/R H-B. Siege of Bihac should mention ARBiH defense.

ARBiH mentioned in relation to Bihać.
Added details, which turned out to be more than I planned, but nonetheless I tried to keep that to a minimum per summary style.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think HB's involvement in the ethnic cleansing should be specified as state responsibility is linked with RS and RSK (see [5] and Lašva Valley for example). --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. All three sides in the war committed ethnic cleansing with knowledge of their respective authorities - albeit on a different scale (Burg, Shoup, p 181; Steven Jacobs, Confronting Genocide p 176) although at a vastly different scale. I am certain, given repeated abuses - in case of the Sarajevo government, lasting beyond the Dayton (Burg, Shoup, p 179) - it was simply not possible that state-level authorities were in the dark. Still neither Bosniak nor Bosnian Croat ethnically based abuses do not compare to Bosnian Serb ones in terms of scope and number of victims/perpetrators. Insisting otherwise is giving those events WP:UNDUE weight in an article where that element is entirely irrelevant to the topic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those and other instances should, OTOH be presented in detail in Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think Ramet in "Central and Southeast European Politics Since 1989" could help guide us in what is of significance from how she summarized the war. It mentions the war crossing from Croatia in BiH, Bosnian independence, RS's ethnic cleansing and its hold of 70% of BiH and intent to unify with RSK and Serbia, FRY's military and financial support, a Bosniak-Croat coalition that lasted until 1993, HDZ/HVO/HB's secessionist intent, the Washington agreement, and the genocide at Srebrenica. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the page is not available in a preview (at least to me). I'll try to summarize the present material a bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "as the war in Croatia began" with quotes in Google books and click the first hit. It should work then. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that actually worked. Included Ramet there - I trust that gives sufficient perspective.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this: "The Bosnian Serb army — renamed the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) after the Republika Srpska state proclaimed in the Bosnian Serb-held territory — was fully integrated with the JNA and as 1992 carried on, it controlled about 70% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was achieved through a large-scale campaign of territorial conquest and ethnic cleansing which was backed by military and financial support from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Even though the war originally pitted Bosnian Serbs against non-Serbs in the country, it evolved into a three-sided conflict by 1993 when the Croat–Bosniak alliance deteriorated and war broke out between the two. The Bosnian Croats declared a Herzeg-Bosnia state with the intent of eventually joining Croatia. This was incompatible with Bosniaks' aspirations of a unitary state which was confronted by demands to partition the country." I think it does a good job establishing relations and focusing on the major aspects. Also Florian Bieber appears to be the author of that chapter, Ramet was the editor of the book. My mistake. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARBiH is mentioned by its full name in "prelude" and "aftermath" section with no acronym established. Republika Srpska likewise could use the "RS" acronym. Other unit's names are fine.

Fixed ARBiH acronym issue. If it's not a dealbreaker, I'd leave RS unabbreviated as there are relatively few places where it could be shortened and the name is not that long. How about it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No DAB issues.
Images check out.
For references similar cleanup as in Operation Storm could be undertaken: alphabetization, removal of author overlinking and "retrieved" info, and renaming of "other sources" section. Locations for book references should be added.

Retrieval dates removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it just occurred to me that this is not a valid request here as it is not a part of the GA criteria per WP:GACR - but I'll do this anyway...--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed overlinking, alphabetized.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, sorry about that. Oh well, less work in the future. :P --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding categories, the "Bosnian War" category should be removed given its more precise child category "Battles of the Bosnian War" is already present. The "1994/1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina" categories should be added.

Fixed per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold until concerns are addressed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time and effort to review the article. I'll try to address your concerns starting right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the GACR and non-GACR issues have now been tackled.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Good work. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]