Talk:Siege of Bjelovar Barracks

Broken citation links/overlinking/dashes

There are a couple of broken citation links, Žabec 28 May 2011 and Bjelajac & Žunec 2009, p. 247. There are also several overlinked words, small arms, general, and Anton Tus. Ran a dash script. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Bjelovar Barracks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 December 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.	c/e LeadY suggest a mention of the number of tanks and field artillery captured to give a sense of the importance Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) BackgroundY PreludeY OOBY a radar base and an anti-aircraft defence communications hub in the village of Zvijerci and Trojstveni Markovac is not clear, was the radar base in one and the AA comms hub in the other? Clarified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC) TimelineY were the airstrikes carried out? If so, details? I found no confirmation of those in reliable sources or otherwise. There is a self-published source (website reportedly maintained by a, well, let's describe him as a history enthusiast since he's not exactly published anything carried by hrčak portal, stating that there were no airstrikes that day after all. Assuming that's true it's no wonder there's no mention of the airstrikes. [1] Since I have no RS saying "there were no airstrikes" or something to that effect, I have no clue what to say in the article other than that they were requested. I am aware that may imply to a casual reader that there were airstrikes, but I'm also at odds regarding equation of absence of evidence with evidence of absence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Suggest adding The sources do not indicate if the requested airstrikes were carried out. Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC) it isn't clear who agreed to the ceasefire, who ignored it, and why the ECMM were sent but were blocked. Can you clarify this bit? Had a go at it. Please check if it is any better.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Does/did Domazet-Lošo claim the call was never made, or that the contents were different from Šimić's version? The source indicates that Domazet-Lošo disputes Šimić's claim (sadly giving no detail other than that). Amended the bit to reflect this accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC) AftermathY This is the first time we have learned that Tepić died in the explosion, it should be mentioned earlier. Did anyone other JNA troops die there? Added info on both issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Are there any more details on the prosecutions? The length of the sentences? Details added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	there are a couple of lang-hr templates that need links fields addedY Added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
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.	airstrikes, prosecutions (see above)Y
	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 tweaked them a bit, put periods in for proper sentences
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days for above comments to be addressed All comments addressed. This article is in good shape for Milhist ACR, and I encourage the nominator to take it there. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Just returned from a business trip. I expect to address the remaining issues tomorrow or over the weekend at the latest if that's ok. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I had a go at the remaining issues, so could you please take another look? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, RL always gets in the way... Yet another excellent addition to the Croatian War of Independence series. Well done, as usual. I suggest you take some of these to Milhist ACR, happy to help you decide which ones would be best to kick off with, just let me know if you'd like some advice on it? Also happy to keep a weather eye on reviews to guide them through and make edits if you are unsure about a prose issue or two. You'll find Dank is great with c/eing nominated articles, which usually smooths the path. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)