Talk:Battle of Gospić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greater Serbian forces?[edit]

Why this loaded term used? Was there a state called 'Greater Serbia' in existance at the time and had it's armed forces called 'Greater Serbia Army'? Only if the answer to these questions would be yes, and it's not, would the term be justified. Otherwise, the sole proper term which would describe certain Yugoslav People's Army and units of Serb Guard (a paramilitary formation created with the support of the Serbian Renewal Party - Srpski Pokret Obnove, although this connection was growing weaker since SPO was already realigning itself politically away from Greater Serbian nationalism and towards a pro-western stance) would be simply 'Serbian Forces'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko Parabucki (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Gospić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this one over the weekend. Zawed (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I made some tweaks as I went along, please check these to ensure I haven't altered any meanings.

Everything checks out. Thanks.

Lead:

  • "Initially, the JNA controlled the eastern part of Gospić in conflict that was fought as a static battle within the city, attacked by JNA artillery." This sentence doesn't flow well at present because of the reference to artillery. I suggest that it be revised to Initially, the JNA, supported by its artillery, controlled the eastern part of Gospić in a conflict that was fought as a static battle within the city. However, I'm not sure whether this alters the meaning of how the artillery was used.
    • Amended as suggested.

Background:

  • "...expelling most of non-Serbs...": delete "of".
    • Deleted.
  • There are a couple of facts that did not take place until after the events of this article. This caused me a little confusion initially so I think they should be removed. I'm referring to the renaming of the ZNG in November and the attack on Dubrovnik.
    • Removed.
  • "...—the Battle of Vukovar starting on 26 August..." You use the long dash here and elsewhere in the article. It is my understanding that these are used like brackets, i.e. in pairs. I also think it should be "started on 26 August" as it takes place before the events of this article.
    • Em dash issue seems to be made obsolete by removal of prose as suggested by the preceding point. "Starting" changed to "started".

Prelude:

  • Note the use of the long dash again in the first sentence, there should be another one after "occurred" instead of the comma.
    • Using commas now.
  • Doesn't explicitly state who abducted the policemen or carried out the attacks.
    • Neither does the source used. The context in which the passage is set indicates the RSK troops or Serb paramilitaries are thought to be responsible.
  • "...a terrorist attack on a police checkpoint in Žuta Lokva." - a police checkpoint in Žuta Lokva was attacked by terrorists.
    • Rephrased.
  • "By the end of the month, the RSK troops attacked the Plitvice police station, and managed to capture it on 30 August." Did this take place all on the same day? If so, it would be better to rephrase this sentence.
    • Rephrased.
  • "...ZNG pulled out of Lički Osik..." No mention of Lički Osik before this. Probably needs some context in terms of location to Plitvice. I assume it is a nearby town or village.
    • Actually it is located about 8 km north of Gospić. Added some info, please recheck if the addition is helpful or something else is needed.

Timeline:

  • "50% of structures": is that 50% of city structures?
    • That is meant to say 50% of structures (buildings) in the city.
  • "On 14 September, the ZNG and the Croatian police surrounded all JNA facilities in the government-controlled part of Croatia, restricting access to them and cutting utility services providing power, water and communications to the facilities—starting the Battle of the Barracks.[28]" Fail to see the relevance of this unless the ZNG did the same in Gospic, in which case it should be rephrased. Something like "The ZNG and Croatian police planned to cut power, water and communications to all JNA facilities in the government-controlled part of Croatia on 14 September. In Gospic, this action was brought forward to 13 September, the same day that the ZNG captured a JNA storage facility...
    • Amended.

Aftermath:

  • "Artillery bombardment of Gospić continued after the battle." So the JNA was able to withdraw its artillery to their lines near Medak and this is within range of Gospic? Probably should mention this as readers will wonder where this bombardment is coming from.
    • Gospić remained very close to the frontline after the battle. The artillery pieces operated by the city garrison were surrendered to the ZNG, but the city remained in range of mortars, let alone heavy artillery, based in Lički Osik and Medak. The source used to support the claim does not specify where did the artillery fire come from exactly, but I'll see if I can find a reliable source on that if necessary.
      • Info located and provided.

References

  • Does the first CIA reference have an ISBN (the second CIA Ref does)?
    • Added ISBN as indicated in the WorldCat entry.
  • No place of publication for Tatalović, Siniša; Jakešević, Ružica?
  • Ditto for Thomas, Robert?
    • Added both.

Images

  • Appropriate tags and captions for images

Other stuff

  • Looks stable and appears neutral.
  • One duplicate link: Lika
    • Fixed.
  • No DAB links.
  • External links all good.
  • Big templates at the bottom of the article, can they be made collapsible?
    • Both of them are already collapsible and set to appear collapsed initially. This is exactly how they appear in my browsers (tried two different ones). Could you try another browser to verify this?

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time and effort to review the article. I hope I have resolved the issues you brought forward - there are still a couple of points which need your feedback, concerning the issues where sources provide insufficient (or insufficiently precise) information to resolve them directly right away. Please review those responses and let me know if further sources are needed there. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I trust all the issues you drew attention to - except the collapsing of the navboxes has now been resolved. Could you please comment on the navbox issue - I have tried few browsers now to access the article and the navboxes always appear autocollapsed to me. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking good now (no issues with the navboxes now) but I notice a lot of the mentions of the RSK has been changed to SAO Krajina. Looking at Republic of Serbian Krajina these "entities" look to be one and the same (assuming that article is correct). So some further comments:

  • In the Background section there is mention of events in 1992/1993 which I still find confusing given the article is about an event that occurred in 1991. I refer specifically to the last two sentences of the first paragraph of this section. However I think a mention that the SAO Krajina later evolved into the RSK is merited, depending on how the next comment is dealt with.
    • Rephrased to avoid that particular pitfall, retaining all relevant info.
  • In the timeline section, there is mention of an RSK report; was it an RSK report or an SAO Krajina report?
    • The report is dated 1 November 1991, which makes it SAO Krajina report - fixed accordingly.
  • Does the caption for the map image needs to be changed as it mentions the RSK?
    • Actually no. The map depicts situation on the ground in the beginning of January 1992 (and the lines did not change at all until June 1992, or appreciably on that scale until 1993) and the RSK was declared on 19 December 1991, so the caption should be fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring these up now, but some of this is due to the changes to the article since my initial review. Zawed (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good, passing as GA. Good work! Zawed (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. I'm glad I had the extra opportunity to improve this GAN - after all it is the 50th one for me!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Battle of Gospić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Gospić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Gospić&oldid=1206169037"