Talk:Zrinski Battalion

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK, no issues.

Comments: This article likely meets the broad and focused aspects of the GA criteria and it is well-cited and covered by various reliable sources. I'd prefer that some of the sources be directly attributed in-line with more frequency, but that is optional. Some of the text leads to more frustration about the service history and the command structure of the battalion - which is the only point I can really fault in the GA process. I do wish the the battle portion be expanded to its own paragraph or two, because the action of the battalion was quite small before it was amalgamated. Is this possible to do? I'll place it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, thank you for volunteering time and effort to review this article. After reading your comments, I'm not quite sure what would you like to see done in the article exactly. The service history already has a three-paragraph section of its own following WP:SUMMARY, so would you prefer to see those expanded or something else altogether added?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see its commanding officers listed and if possible, extra details on the role in the individual battles. This may not be possible, but this is more of an FA matter, if you say that it cannot be done, I'll pass it because there is no problem with the level of details present in the article. I am just a stickler on certain things. If anything, could you please add more inline citations for cases like:

• "In the beginning of 1991, Croatia had no regular army. In an effort to bolster its defence, Croatia doubled the size of its police force to about 20,000. The most effective part of the force was the 3,000-strong special police that were deployed in 12 battalions, adopting military organisation." + typo on "organisation" needs to be fixed.
  • Already covered by reference 5 following the claim. Why should there be an additional reference?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Preparations to set up the Croatian National Guard (Zbor narodne garde – ZNG) began on 12 April 1991. Establishment of the ZNG as a police force with military capabilities was thought necessary by the Croatian authorities following armed clashes in Pakrac and at Plitvice Lakes in March and due to the possibility of further confrontation with the JNA."
  • Already covered by reference 6 following the claim. Why should there be an additional reference?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The Zrinski Battalion was deployed for the first time on 15 June. It was stationed in Vukovar, tasked with preparation of city defences and organisation of volunteer troops. In August, Filipović took over command of the battalion from Roso."
  • Already covered by reference 10 following the claim. Why should there be an additional reference?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That being said, please check it over and let me know. There are also a lot of typos that need fixing... and its swapping between different versions of English. So please copy edit it. I see a lot of "defence" spellings when it is "Territorial Defense Forces", so I think the prevailing name causes this to be reflected as is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• As there has been no activity and the issues are not resolved. I will fail this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A notice for future reviewers: The above statement is not quite as it may seem. I have requested the reviewer to postpone further activities regarding this GAR until the beginning of the next week and received their acknowledgement and implicit approval here. I initiated the exchange at the reviewer's talk page rather than here because the reviewer had taken on as many as five GANs I nominated, therefore a centralized notice seemed more efficient. Although it is entirely within the GA reviewer's rights to fail the review at this point, I'm still taken aback with inconsistent answer at the reviewer's talk page and subsequent action here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, three days is a bit short. I reopened. No worries, I get pestered if I keep them open too long. But I'll reopen them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The details requested on commanders and details on unit role in individual battles is simply nowhere to be found in reliable sources. Therefore it is not actionable for me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is written in British English. Regarding the Territorial Defence vs Territorial Defense, the search results are nearly evenly split at 6 to 7 thousand apiece. The organisation has no native English name therefore I don't find the direction to use US spelling to be applicable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

All three claims noted above as missing citations are already referenced in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I have repeated the refs now in requested positions.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's been over three weeks since this review has been edited. ChrisGualtieri, how soon do you think you can get back to it? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Passed. Good work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)