Talk:Operation Summer '95

Operation Summer '95 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 31, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Bosnia and Herzegovina Mid‑importance

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Operation Summer '95 is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Balkan / European / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian brigades

Citations are needed for the list of Croatian HV and HVO brigades involved. By the way, Croatian wiki has another list of brigades but also without sources :(( --Usama ibn Saddam ben Yorik (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Summer '95/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reviewing this article --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Overall comments

The article is very well-referenced with citations to reliable sources. It deals with the subject comprehensively and gives readers who aren't familiar with the Balkan wars, like myself, a good idea on the background of this particular operation and the broader war(s) that it was a part of. The battle itself and its aftermath is also described in great detail. The article currently appears stable and is sufficiently illustrated by relevant images with no apparent copyright issues.

The article is on the cusp of passing, it just needs some tweaks to its grammar and some sentences may need to be reworded to become less ambiguous. I will list the specific issues, most of which are minor, in a separate subsection tomorrow.

The article reads quite neutrally, I just have one query about the use of the term "ethnic cleansing." As I stated above, I'm not very familiar with this topic area. Is this the acceptable term that's used on wikipedia? I've looked at some other articles in the topic area and it is indeed used quite often, but none of the articles I read were GA's. If the nominator can just clarify this for me, then there should be no problems regarding neutrality. Overall, this article has been very informative. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for picking up this review. I'll do my best to address any concerns you might have right away.

Yes, the term is quite acceptable - it is already in use in peer-reviewed articles Operation Winter '94 and Operation Storm (maybe more, but I'm aware of these). The two articles both passed a GA-review and WP:MILHIST A-class review afterwards. The A-class reviews may be found here and here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought so, just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lead

... in the western Bosnia and Herzegovina. -- Article "the" appears unnecessary.
The operation was carried out in 25–29 July 1995. --Should "in" be "on" or "between"?
... encountered initially strong resistance of the 5,500 VRS 2nd Krajina Corps -- The first two bolded words should be reversed as "initially encountered" for better flow, and "of" should be "from" unless the article "the" is written behind "strong." As for the the last bolded part, this is somewhat confusing. I think you're trying to say there were 5,500 VRS soldiers, so should it be "5,500-strong VRS 2nd Krajina Corps"?
The HV/HVO pushed the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) back capturing about 1,600 square kilometres (620 square miles) of territory, intercepting Knin–Drvar road—critical for supply of the self-declared Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). -- Should this be slightly reworded to say The HV/HVO pushed the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) back, capturing about 1,600 square kilometres (620 squaremiles) of territory and consequently intercepting Knin–Drvar road—a critical supply route of the self-declared Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). If my suggested changes are not the best, obviously you could make separate ones. I just think that sentence needs to be improved, but don't find it necessary to split it into two sentences, although that would be fine too.
primary goal—draw VRS units from the besieged city of Bihać—but -- Should "draw" be "to draw" or "drawing"?
Operation Summer '95 was launched in response to renewed attacks of the VRS and the RSK military on the Bihać pocket ... -- "of" should be "by."
The area was viewed as strategic to Croatian military effort by the HV General Staff as it presented an obstacle to supply of the RSK ... -- "to Croatian" should be "to the Croatian," "to supply" should "to the supply."
... if the Bihać pocket were overran by the RSK or the VRS. -- "were overran" should be "was overran".
Amongst the United States, France and the United Kingdom, there was division regarding how to protect the area. -- This should be reversed to read "There was division amongst the United States, France and the United Kingdom regarding how to protect the area." --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended (largely) as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background: No issues with this section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude: ... as French President François Mitterrand discouraged any military intervention, greatly helping the Serb war effort. -- Not a prose issue, but this should be attributed, as in "according to source(s)". --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle: No issues with this section.

Operation timeline: VRS defences were well prepared all along the frontline attacked by the HV and the HVO, and especially so in the Bosansko Grahovo area, where fortifications, shelters and covered trenches were prepared in several lines of defences and obstacles, including minefields. -- This sentence is kind of confusing, particularly the first part. Maybe break it into two sentences or reword it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Women and children started to evacuate to Yugoslavia ... -- Just curious, what does Yugoslavia refer to here? I thought it was dissolved by 1995.

Well, the article speaks of 1995, but that reference was made to FR Yugoslavia. I removed pipe from the wikilink to clarify.

That's about it. The article is actually pretty well-written. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to address all the issues you raised. Thank you very much for the review, I trust it genuinely helped the article quality to improve.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been taken care of as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for writing a good article! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]