Here's the review:
- The description of the second massacre is a little confusing. It sounds as if the killing of 700-1,200 people was initiated by six soldiers, and that more showed up after massacre started. Can you please specify how many members of the Ustaše participated in the massacre? And also how the original six subdued the crowd of 700-1,200? (By threatening them with rifles or other weapons?)
- No, the Serbs thought they were going to be converted to Catholicism, which is why they entered the church without any struggle. I've clarified this in the article. What do you think?
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Is it possible to expand the "Legacy" section?
I've expanded it somewhat.
- I have some concern about the opening paragraph. The first sentence describes the massacres as "genocidal", but it does not seem particularly common for that terminology to be used in that manner in other articles unless the events being described are nearly universally recognized as such. Do you know if that is the case with this incident? Another point of concern is the second sentence, which I don't believe complies well with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "They are considered amongst the most infamous of the early atrocities perpetrated by the Ustaše in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH)." It is best to attribute the statement to the source ("according to X, they are among the most infamous...")
- 1) The "genocidal" bit is taken from Mirković, who attributes in the "Notes" section such a description to several works published by Croatian authors prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia. These works, in turn, point to the Nuremberg trials which established that Ustaše persecution of Serbs was, in fact, genocidal. (see: Singleton, A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples, p. 177) What Mirković is saying, in effect, is that the massacres were genocidal because they were part of a larger campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ustaše. 2) As for the "infamous atrocity" statement, I've attributed this to Tim Judah. 23 editor (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- The changes look good, and I believe the article now meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)