Talk:Lovas killings

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Double measures?

User P.Grlic put this tag {{sources}}, while at the very same edit [1], he removed some referenced lines. Kubura (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Given this has been here over a month and you are such a prolific GAN reviewer, I'll overcome my usual reticence to review 1990's Yugoslav wars articles. Will get started shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead suggest "occupation" instead of "unopposed capture", "deployment" and "capture" "through" is used in a uniquely US/American way, I suggest substituting "until" suggest you add that Croatia declared independence on 8 October 1991. suggest "when troops guarding a group of civilians forced them to walk into a minefield at gunpoint and then opened fire on them" "The bodies of the victims were retrieved from a mass grave and ten individual graves in 1997" is out of chronological order, I suggest you put it after "... forced to leave their homes", and following it with "Lovas was rebuilt after the war." suggest you add something to the lead about the decline in population, and also more about the results of the trials. Suggest you add that a group was convicted, but a retrial is underway. Should the Serbian translation of the title be in Cyrillic? Background who defeated the government and when? insert "within the Republic" before "worsened" insert "and" before "parts of the..." This revolt was followed "in January 1991, by..." (if that is correct. Current wording isn't clear). it is pretty important to maintain the continuity re: year, I know you know what year it was, it just isn't clear to readers. How did the JNA come under the control of Milošević? Pretty important. Timeline unnecessary detail re:(consisting of three mechanised brigades, antitank, artillery and air-defence regiments, and an engineers battalion), also garrison locations of brigades. It is reasonable to assume garrison locations were irrelevant at this stage. delete "At that time" you provide the timeframe we've established the 3rd Guards were ZNG, unnecessary pre-position. suggest replacing "spanning" with "between" delete "On the other hand, ", irrelevant, we know what the opposing sides were, also deleted "normally based in Valjevo", again irrelevant, there was a war on need to explain Dusan Silni paramilitaries at first mention in the body. "bombs" I think you mean "grenades" "by the Serb forces and paramilitaries", please clarify who you mean, JNA, TO or paramils? "and one on the way there" if this person was killed on the way there, they weren't forced into the minefield. Needs re-ordering. "By September". What does this mean, prior to November, or up to and including November? Aftermath per lead, the figures do not add up. This section says 78, but lead says 70. This section appears to add another six, plus three, ie 87. So what is the total number? Somewhere in the article, you should point out the religious differences, ie mention that the Croatian Serbs are generally Orthodox, the Croats Catholic and that St Michael's was a Roman Catholic church.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	suggest alt text on pics (not a GA requirement)
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for above points to be addressed

Thanks for taking up the review. I copyedited the lead as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All standard checks are green. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Regading the number of deaths - The sources I managed to find indicate a total of 70: 22 during the initial assault, 23 more between then and the minefield deaths, 1 on the way to the minefield and 21 in the minefield itself, plus 3 more after that. That's 22+23+1+21+3=70. Regarding the number of exhumed bodies, out of 68 exhumed from the mass grave, 2 were not from Lovas (unfortunately, sources such as this one do not indicate where exactly they were from). A possible "lead" is given in this source (used in the article) which says that out of 9 sets of remains exhumed in Jelaš Forest, only 5 have been identified and 3 out of those were military and that the graves contained remains of residents of Lovas and Tovarnik (a nearby village). I found no similar details on the ten individual graves (regarding possible identification o the bodies buried there), but it appears that at least two out o three burial sites were used to bury not only those killed in Lovas but also some civilians and military killed elsewhere. Now, there appears to be no source directly offering such an analysis, so perhaps it would the best to rephrase the relevant bit and say that the victims were among those buried at these three sites. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to convey this message in the aftermath section - Could you please take a look and see if I managed or fumbled that? I also edited the article to address your concerns raised in the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed that one, thanks for pointing that out - should be reodered chronologically now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, good article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Title

Is this a WP:UCN title or a descriptive one? I couldn't find the phrase "Lovas massacre" in a Google Books search, and only one hit in a 2008 B92 article, so it seems to be a descriptive one (albeit based on a source). In which case, "killings" may be more appropriate per WP:NDESC. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No idea to be honest. My search turned up the same results in English as you indicate. I simply left the article title as it was, not being sure what to do about it. I'm fine with "killings" instead of "massacre".--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to use a neutral description unless a non-neutral title is the obvious common name. I'll move it to "Lovas killings" after the review is completed and the bots have done their work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lovas killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/croatia-built-web-of-contacts-to-evade-weapons-embargo-1556500.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/03/world/belgrade-sends-troops-to-croatia-town.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/roads-sealed-as-yugoslav-unrest-mounts.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/18/world/croats-concede-danube-town-s-loss.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/02/world/rebel-serbs-complicate-rift-on-yugoslav-unity.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923040416/http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html to http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lovas killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218120417/http://books.google.hr/books?id=G5Px01NrM7QC to https://books.google.hr/books?id=G5Px01NrM7QC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)