Talk:Battle of Kolubara/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article, as a whole, is well-written indeed. I made a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. Instead of having a note that contains the Serbian and German translation of "Battle of Kolubara" considered writing that in the lead as that is standard structure on virtually all battle articles.

2. Instead of starting of with "was fought between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in November and December 1914, during the Serbian Campaign of World War I" consider changing it to "was a major battle of World War I that was fought between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in November and December 1914, during the Serbian Campaign". The point of this change is letting the reader know it was a battle.

3. "leaving it to be captured by the Austro-Hungarians" - When followed up by the previous sentence, there is no need for this addition.

4. "Petar Bojović, Stepa Stepanović, Pavle Jurišić Šturm and Miloš Božanović commanded the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Užice armies, respectively" - To avoid a peacock or POV discussion I'd recommend removing the "respectively" part.

5. "He was given permission in September to launch another invasion of Serbia provided that he "not risk anything that might lead to a further fiasco." - This whole sentence should be changed to "He was given permission in September to launch another invasion of Serbia on the promise he did "not risk anything that might lead to a further fiasco".

6. "the Serbian Army managed to prevent the Austro-Hungarians from taking the railroad for a time" - Considered replacing "for a time", as it appears somewhat unprofessional, with "for a certain period of time".

7. "who were already significantly demoralized due a lack of cold-weather clothing and ammunition and exhausted by the long retreat towards the Serbian interior" - The "and" addition between "clothing" and "ammunition" should be replaced with a comma as it's not the last point mentioned.

8. "but the scorched earth tactics employed by the Serbs during their withdrawal complicated the Austro-Hungarian advance" - Consider replacing the word "the" with "further". At this point in the article, we have heard of a number of Austro-Hungarian advances.

9. "This gave them an advantage over the Austro-Hungarians in that it placed them in control of all roads leading to the city of Kragujevac" - This is just a suggestion, but I would replace "in that it" with "as it".

10. "The Austro-Hungarians reached the Kolubara on 16 November" - I'm aware the lead and the photo directly to the right of this section, refers to the Kolubara River as "Kolubara", but since this is one big ass article, I would recommend changing "the Kolubara" to "the Kolubara River".

11. "the Austro-Hungarians back and over the course of the next 5 days" - Because the number five is between 1-9 it should be written in words per WP:NUMERAL.

12. "Further south, the Austro-Hungarians attacked the Serbian 1st Army. During the assault, they made the mistake of attacking its stronger right flank" - Because this is a B-reference to a battle in a section that is about the main battle the "During the assault" part should be changed to "During this assault".

13. "The Austro-Hungarians made a renewed attack against the Serbian 1st Army on 21 November" - When you start off with "The Austro-Hungarians made a renewed attack" you don't have to include the "Serbian" part as it's obvious the Austro-Hungarians was not attacking their own 1st Army.

14. "but Potiorek chose not to pursue the retreating forces and gave them the chance to make an orderly withdrawal" - This is not clear! Did he purposefully give them a chance to retreat or did his decision not to pursue simply enable them to make a sufficient retreat?

15. "The Serbian people withdrew alongside their army and many retreated to Niš, where news of Belgrade's fall was greeted impassively as "it had been expected since the beginning of the war" - The paragraph should not being at "it" but at "expected".

16. "Potiorek knew that he could avoid a serious reversal on the battlefield by preventing the Serbian 1st Army from reaching the watershed of the Kolubara and Morava rivers, but the Serbs were confident" - Saying the "Serbs were confident" is, perhaps true, but nevertheless non-neutral. Considered changing it to "but the Serbs did not buy his bait". Or something that comes off more neutral.

17. "Meanwhile, the Austro-Hungarians attempted to consolidate control around Belgrade. On 7 December, they attacked the right flank of the Serbian Army in the city's outskirts" - If you're going to end a sub-section like this it would be wise to mention a word or two about the result of that battle.

18. "it failed to knock Serbia out of the war, it failed to induce Bulgaria to join the Central Powers and it failed to convince Romania to stay neutral" - This whole sentence should be changed to "it failed to knock Serbia out of the war, induce Bulgaria to join the Central Powers, and to convince Romania to stay neutral".

19. "Potiorek, on the other hand, was relieved of command on 22 December for "this most ignominious, rankling and derisory defeat" - The quote should not begin at "this" but at "ignominious".

20. It's true that the noble German middle name of "von" is never capitalized, but when it's the fist word after a period, it should be capitalized. This mistake occurs a few times in the "Serbian counterattack" and "Aftermath" section.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. 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

c. It contains no original research

The article uses book sources and Harvard references. All the books cited has either OCLC or ISBN numbers and all the source-information required.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

This is a long article that's very broad in its coverage. It stays focused on the important details and addresses the main aspects of the topic.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral with a few non-neutral comments pointed out in the "Well-written" section. But even so, the article is neutral and does not include personal statements or opinions.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable and its content does not significantly change from day to day. Its not the subject of edit wars or content dispute (the latest dispute/heated discussion is from 2008 as shown on the talk page).

• Illustrated

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

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

This article contains seven images. The images specific size and location throughout the article is very nice placed. All images are uploaded and from Commons and contains the necessary copyright/information text.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor errors/suggestions I'm of course going to pass it. Excellent job guys; I was really entertained by reading the article and its really of a professional standard. It might even pass for a potential FA-nomination in the future. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)