Talk:Vance plan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:34, 14 June 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.	I have c/e'd the article, feel free to revert as necessary. "the UN would restore the area" this bit isn't clear. Do you mean the UNPAs? If so, why would the Croatians think that, given the terms of the agreement didn't include transition to Croatian control? And why would the UN try to achieve that given the agreement didn't include it? This is counter-intuitive, and needs some further explanation. The reference to Chapter VI/VII of the United Nations Charter needs more explanation, as these are the basis for authorisation of UN troops to use of force, quite important in this context given the UNSCR didn't explicitly state the authority. I suggest you consider using Template:Infobox treaty using the details of the Implementation Agreement, as it is the one that is really considered to be the "Vance plan"
	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.	I suggest you use the photograph of Vance next to the lead, and move the UNPROFOR deployment map down to the body. It is after all about his peace plan.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is in good nick, on hold for seven days for remaining points re: criteria 1a to be addressed.All points addressed.

Thank you very much for the review. I have tried to address your concerns, but would like to have some feedback on the following:

• Regarding the copyedit, I have no qualms, except that the JNA in Croatian is "Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija" and in Serbian it is "Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija". I have no clue which is correct in SC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I had a look in Google Books, and the Serbian version seems to have been around for much longer in academic publications in English, and the article on sc WP is at that name. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I clarified which areas were meant in "the UN would restore the area". In the same sentence: there's little I can add (and reference) as to why Croatians believed UN force would restore their control over the areas lost to the RSK-control. I seem to remember that was a prevalent (mis)conception, and the source available on the matter seems to support the claim that they believed so. Throughout the war people who "spoke" legalese interpreted various UNSC resolutions to authorities on either side of the frontline variously. Maybe that was one such interpretation, maybe wishful thinking. I simply cannot reference any such explanation. Hope the additional explanation in the article works.
  • That's fine, these things aren't always cut and dried. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed the UNSC resolution establishing UNPROFOR makes zero references to ch 6 or 7. Instead it refers to ch 8 which contains some (vague to me) description what happens if someone confronts the UN force. No other provision on the rules of engagement seem to be included in the UNSC resolution. Added some explaination to the text.
  • Good enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I have moved the UNPROFOR deployments map next to the table defining UNPAs, that seemed more natural, and moved general location map to the lead instead. Hope that's fine.
  • THat's fine, it's a personal preference thing, and it is within guidelines. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• While there is information (JNA 9th Corps report) that the parties in Sarajevo were briefed on details of the Vance plan (pp.39-41), and that it is pivotal (along with the Geneva Accord) to the plan (as explicitly stated in the relevant UNSC resolution) I'm concerned such use of box in the lead (please note that a box is already used in the appropriate section) would give it undue weight relative to the Geneva Accords which also appears to be central to the plan (Armatta p.196). If there was a way to include both Geneva and Sarajevo documents in the lead (short of having two boxes, which seems clumsy) I'd be more than happy to move the box(es) there. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's fine. I can live with that, there really isn't an infobox that is flexible enough to do the job. Good job, listing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)