Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:No issues
• Reference check: No issues

Comments: This article is fairly well-written, but has several issues. First is that it fails WP:LEAD. It also fails MINREF with the lack of inline citations. The sections include:

• "Control of the Kupres area was contested by Bosnian Serbs and Croats. Before the war, the former represented the majority of the population on the Kupres Plateau, comprising a total of 51 percent of its inhabitants, while Croats accounted for 39 percent. The JNA deployed an armoured unit based in Mostar to the plateau in May 1991. The bulk of the force moved to Knin three months later, while a tactical group of the 30th Partisan Division redeployed to the general area as it withdrew from Slovenia after the Ten-Day War. In September, the Bosnian Croats established the Territorial Defence Force (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) headquarters which set up armed volunteer units."
  • Not quite so - covered by reference 4 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "On 5 March, the Bosnian Serb TO requested equipment for two companies mobilised in villages around Kupres—Malovan, Rilić and Ravno. The mobilisation was motivated by poor military intelligence provided by the 30th Partisan Division. "
  • Also incorrect - covered by reference 10 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "On 27 March, an attempt to reach a negotiated settlement failed and the commanding officer of the 19th Partisan Brigade announced that armed combat might start at a moment's notice. The news prompted the evacuation of civilians of all ethnicities on 27–28 March."
  • Likewise incorrect - covered by reference 16 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Kupres Battalion of the Bosnian Croat TO mobilised an additional 200 troops in Kupres the same day."
  • No. Covered by reference 21 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the afternoon of 2 April, a five-hour meeting of local political leaders took place in Kupres, at the request of JNA. The purpose of the meeting, attended by members of Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Biljana Plavšić and Franjo Boras, was to defuse the situation. While there was an agreement to establish an ethnically balanced police force in Kupres and remove the roadblocks, the opposing sides could not agree on the role of the JNA. "
  • As incorrect as above. Covered by reference 23 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "According to the JNA, the Bosnian Croat TO attacked in the morning of 3 April, reached the village of Donji Malovan and blockaded the Kupreška Vrata Tunnel by 7:30 a.m. The village was captured by Croats after three hours of combat, and the fighting shifted towards the village of Gornji Malovan and Kupres. By the end of the day, the Bosnian Serb TO force in Gornji Malovan was besieged."
  • Similarly, covered by reference 26 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "At dawn on 6 April, the JNA launched a fresh attack towards Kupres and Kupreška Vrata, leaving the bulk of the 13th Partisan Brigade in reserve and employing the rest of the force at the plateau. The artillery was used so intensely, that the 30th Partisan Division had to request resupply of its depleted stocks. The most effective part of the advance was the 9th Tank Company, which quickly pushed through the defensive positions, bypassed Zlosela and reached Olovo."
  • Covered by reference 39 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "HV General Janko Bobetko arrived in Tomislavgrad on 11 April to find that a company of the HV 126th Infantry Brigade, deployed to Šuica, had left its positions on its own accord. The move was followed by preparations for the evacuation of Šuica in expectation of a JNA advance south from Kupres. Bobetko managed to turn the 126th Brigade back to Šuica persuading them to defend the town overnight in order to defend the entire region. It is not clear if the OG-11 intended to continue its advance towards Šuica though. Soon after the Battle of Kupres, a portion of the 9th Armoured Battalion was transferred to Glamoč to support the Bosnian Serb TO attack towards Livno there."
  • And covered by ref 48 following this claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the article is sourced to Marijan, making a possible POV issue, could you comment on this? Also, the CIA 2002 ref needs to be specific, to Volume 1 or Volume 2 for reader to account for verifiability. I'll place this on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marijan is generally used to establish timeline and not to draw value judgments or analyses. He is also an acceptable source at A-level review at the WP:MILHIST. Is there a specific claim you suspect of being POV or is that just a stab in the dark?

Balkan Battlegrounds volume indicator added per request.

You also claim the article fails WP:LEAD yet you fail to indicate in what specific way is that. Could you please elaborate?

All claims in the article are referenced - as noted above therefore the article complies with WP:MINREF. Regards--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As they are specific, they need to be cited as they are contentious otherwise and need an inline citation. And as per WP:LEAD, the article's lead does not touch upon the points in summary. From background to the prelude to the actual breakdown of the battle itself. More detail is given to this line " Most of the Bosnian Croat TO troops, formally reorganised as the Croatian Defence Council (Hrvatsko vijeće obrane – HVO) on 8 April" then any other single part of that section. It does not mention the war crimes charges. This is why it is a WP:LEAD issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeated the references now to meet your request although I fail to see how did that contribute to quality of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are two war crime charges mentioned in the article, with two sentences on either of those. There is very little detail because no trials begun and no details were released. Since you pointed this out, I certainly can summarise the four sentences to one and add it into the lead - but I trust that would violate WP:UNDUE given the level of detail available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'd violate it because while information is sparse, it is a direct response to the action. Better to be concise in the lead, but some aspects deserve noting even if the coverage is short. This article is pretty good to begin with. So I don't think I'd have much flak to take from passing it, but if you really think that one sentence can't be spared... I'd let it go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a couple of sentences are already in (the lead is expanded as requested). I thought I'd point this out for future reference at WP:MILHIST A-class review, where previous peer reviews, such as this GAR are bound to be examined.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the current status of this review? The last edit to the article was over three weeks ago, the lead expansion mentioned above. The progress box appears completely unassessed. How much is left to do to bring the article to GA level? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed all the issues raised so far by the reviewer (as indicated in 28 January post above) and prompted the reviewer twice on their talkpage regarding further action regarding this GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it looks good, sorry for the delay. I'll pass this now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]