Talk:Operation Tiger (1992)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This one has been waiting too long for a review, so I'll take it.

• Images check OK
• No duplicate links
• No dab links
• A couple of the external links are redirects? The UN websites in Notes 48 and 49. Don't think it is an issue for GA though.

References

• Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States is listed as a book source but doesn't appear to be cited.
  • It is used by cite #10.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting of the NYT 19 August 1990 reference is different to all the others, probably because no author is identified. I'm not an expert in citations but shouldn't Reuters be listed as author (a staff writer was probably author)?
  • The Reuters is identified as news agency using "agency=" parameter (as instructed at {{Cite news}}, hence the difference. To be honest, I've never used this type of parameter for any other ref, but for this one I simply applied solution that was accepted at Operation Winter '94 that passed both GA and ACR. I'm fine with either solution, but I feel that the template instruction might be "more correct" one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Not an issue for GA, but some news articles are archived and some aren't.
• The first reference in the Other Sources section lists and links Narodne novine twice.
  • Fixed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review the prose in detail over the coming weekend (15/16 June). Zawed (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Prose I've done a few minor tweaks as I went along, so only the following points need to be addressed:

• "The areas were subsequently named the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK) and, after declaring its intention to integrate with Serbia, the Government of Croatia declared the RSK a rebellion." I find this sentence a little confusing as to what is integrating with Serbia. Suggest rephrasing for sake of clarity to (assuming I have the interpretation right) : "The areas were subsequently named the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK), which declared its intention to integrate with Serbia. The Government of Croatia subsequently declared the RSK a rebellion."
  • Rephrased as suggested.
• "... the decision came into effect on 8 October." - I assume this means the independence came into effect. Might want to clarify this.
  • Reworded.
• "...new conflict was anticipated, but Serbia continued..." Not sure sure why "but" is being used here; is there a relationship between the new conflict and Serbia's continued support?
  • Broken sentence in two and clarified.
• "...the JNA pushed the HV/HVO force from Stolac meeting on 11 April..." Is "Stolac meeting" a place or is there a word or two missing here?
  • I have no clue what is the "meeting" doing there. Removed.
• "HV General Janko Bobetko, appointed to command the Southern Front, reorganized the HVO command structure and assumed command of the HVO in the area in order to stop the expected JNA/VRS offensive and regain the lost territory." The word "command" is used three times in this sentence. For example, the first instance could be replaced with "lead".
  • Done.
• "...1st Guards Brigade was supported in that way by..." Not clear what is meant by "in that way".
  • Broken sentence in two and clarified.
• "The JNA withdrew from the area as agreed, leaving Croatian soil by 8:30 pm." On what day?
  • Added info.
• "...provoked emotional response in Montenegro..." Why Montenegro? This is the first time in the article Montenegro is mentioned.
  • Replaced "Montenegro/Serbia" with Yugoslavia. The source offered to back up the claim notes an emotional response to the agreement, and compared the response in the two federal republics of Yugoslavia. I don't think it would be beneficial for the article to go at length explaining that Montenegro is much closer to the area (sharing a land border) and that a (disproportionally) large part of the JNA troops involved in fighting around Dubrovnik were mobilised in Montenegro (rather than Serbia) just to point out that the response was more mooted in Montenegro than in Serbia - hence the replacement with "Yugoslavia".

That's it for now. Zawed (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to tackle this nom. I think I've addressed all the issues raised above. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks, good, passing as a GA. Zawed (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)