Talk:Vukovar massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do this one over the next week. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 18 April 2015 (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 a query about the use of the term "prisoners of war" in this article. No doubt they were captured combatants/Croatian soldiers, but PW has a legal meaning. Did any tribunal refer to them as prisoners of war? Yes, ICTY does so here: [1] Suggest not introducing acronyms in the lead unless the term is being repeated in the lead, instead, introduce them in the body and provide the acronym then Done Suggest you use a feet and inches conversion for "one metre" in the Discovery section. There already was one, but well disguised one - producing spelled "three point three feet" conversion by mistake. Tweaked to produce figures.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	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).	There are a number of syntax issues with citations not pointing to sources and vice versa. Fn 22, 62 and 63 don't point to a citation (NYT and Novi list plus UN 1 Oct 96) All fixed. Novi list ref was erroneously noted in the sfn templates as "September" where it should have been "April", the UN source was broken because of a typo in the harvid template call, while the NYT article date was 24 Oct, not 25 Oct (similar to NL mixup). Incidentally, the NYT article also supports 261 victims total as a statement of an ICTY representative.
	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.	The use of the Croatian rather than UN figure in the lead detracts from neutrality. Suggest a range or the UN figure. I assume this to pertain to 200 vs 260 count. If so, would it be acceptable to remove all figures from the initial paragraph and leave the explaining to the 3rd paragraph of the lead which unambiguously says ICTY investigators exhumed 200 and Croatians believe 61 more died there? Update: I tweaked this along these lines and added info that ICTY prosecutors support the 60ish missing claim to steer clear from any sort of bias. There was a similar claim in Mrkšić case where ICTY prosecutors alleged 264 killed, but then went along with 194 (despite 200 exhumed) - presumably because it was much more simple legal matter of proving those 194 identified people were taken from the hospital and killed there and obtain a conviction than to try to prove who the remaining six were or what happened to others whose bodies were not recovered. Good plan. Happy with that. Sadly, prosecutors often have to base things on what they can prove, rather than what is obvious to the detached observer. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) While I was adding Bell radio piece, I noticed (and noted it in the article), that Bell also supports 261 victims claim, albeit differing in number of women in the group from Armatta by 1.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	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.	File:Accused Mile Mrkšić.jpg needs more information in the description and licensing Could not find relevant info, so I replaced the image File:Goran Hadzic 1992 2.jpg and the links don't confirm that Christian Maréchal is the uploader. The uploader was Writegeist, but there is no way of confirming that they are the same person. I think Writegeist will have to confirm to Commons that they are the same person, and something will have to be added to their image licenses. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Removed altogether due to this and a new issue with Mrkšić img.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days for an image licence to be sorted out.Passing.

• Sorry, ANZAC Day got in the way. Will get on with this now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you use the two External links as sources, just to mention in the body that Bell did a BBC radio piece in 2011 (and add anything that he said that adds to the article), and mention that a Croat-Serb doco was made in 2006 and how it was received. Definitely worth adding. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No worries about the delay - RL interfered over here as well. I have removed the image pointed out above because there was an issue re Mrkšić licensing as well, so until there is something of substance, I trust the article is better off without the image. I have worked Bell's piece into the article, and removed the documentary from EL altogether because it appears to be tangentially relevant at best - it deals with the battle and the coverage appears to be limited to the battle and the city itself. On the other hand, there is a mention of the documentary in the battle article, and the doco coverage appears substantial enough to warrant at least a stub on the film - which might be a better venue for further elaboration on the issue. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. I'm happy with this now, passing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)