The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closd/withdrawn -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk)


Joy and I wish to co-nominate this article for featured article status; I have been advised by Dank to seek an A-class review first. It has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite to mark the upcoming 20th anniversary of the battle, which falls two months from today, on 18 November 2011. The battle was a critically important event in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and will be the subject of commemorations in Croatia. It will also attract significant international media coverage, some of which has already begun to appear, in the run-up and on the day itself. Having written featured articles before, I've set out to write this to featured standard from the outset and I'm pretty sure that it will meet many of the featured and A-class article criteria. The sister article on the Croatian Wikipedia is already a featured article (though this is not a translation of it). Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments
  • I've omitted the brackets, since I don't seem to have any way of adding them through the harvnb template.
  • Agreed, since I don't have reliable translations for the other non-English titles I've left them out altogether.
    • Hmm, in the previous GA reviews I've read, ad hoc trans_title seemed to have been preferred. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you want to go through all the non-English titles and translate them, please feel free to do so. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do others think, would this be a worthwhile effort? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still working on the page numbers. This should be sorted in the next couple of days. Please note though that some offline sources, such as news agency reports, do not have page numbers - adding them will only be possible for offline newspaper references.
  • Almost all page numbers now added. A couple are still missing; I'll try to track them down. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources without authors should be sorted by publisher. I've spotted a couple of discrepancies and fixed them. Prioryman (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two aren't synonymous, I'm afraid. An art historian I cite further on in the article specifically highlights the pre-war town's Baroque architecture as the finest example of its kind in the country. Referring to it as a "17th century" town implies that it was founded then, which isn't the case. I've restored "Baroque" but linked it to Baroque architecture. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood, and "17th-century" was a bad choice. The link helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dedaković came to be known Jastreb ("Hawk") in the Croatian media during the war and his second in command Borković was nicknamed "Mladi jastreb" ("Young Hawk"). It's difficult to pinpoint when these nicknames came into use and if they were really used as codes in military communications or were invented by the media, but the nicknames stuck and are almost always appended to their full names when they appear in the local media even today (which is every now and then as they both went on to became vocal critics of the government's handling of war veterans' affairs since the war ended). I think nom de guerre if fine but it could just as well describe it as his "nickname". Timbouctou (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. In that case, I'd prefer "nickname". - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contemporary sources that I've seen suggest that the names were actually codenames used for reasons of operational security and that the men's real names were kept secret at the time of the battle. I'll look into this. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also don't see the problem with using the meaning that maps to pseudonym through the nom de guerre redirect. The text there is a bit long on the original etymology, but then it clearly states: Such pseudonyms are often adopted by [...] resistance fighters, [...] This practice hides their identities and protects their families from reprisal; it may also be a form of dissociation from domestic life. [...] It's not a perfect match, but it seems appropriate and there are no inappropriate connotations as there were with the quarantine term (disease). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've linked it to nom de guerre. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, that works. There are several sources referring to the names as noms de guerre, and one specifically says that they were used as a codenames during the battle and that the men's real names were not disclosed until afterwards. Joy's comment about the reasons for using the pseudonym seem about right. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a legacy of a previous version of the article. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded as: "The Serbian secret police agency, the SDB, actively participated in military operations. Some of its officers commanded Serbian TO units fighting at Vukovar[63] and the SDB's head visited the area during the battle to find out why Vukovar had not yet fallen." Better? Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reduced" in the sense of crushing a rebellion (it's an alternative meaning of the verb). For the purposes of clarity, I've replaced it with "taken".
  • "Intermittent" is probably redundant. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the line out since, as you say, it's time-dependent. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this a bit to resolve these issues. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rump Yugoslavia" is the standard term; see e.g. [1] Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but most readers won't know that, and rump means "ass" and so will come across to them as POV. Is "what remained of Yugoslavia" inaccurate, or too informal? - Dank (push to talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went with "the reduced Yugoslavia"; feel free to debate this, but I need this for now to support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I switched it to its proper name and linked it, so it should be all clear now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not happy with "reduced" and "rump" is in no way POV - it's a well-established and widely-used geopolitical term, as in "rump state". I'm also not very happy with the proper name, as it risks confusion with the previously-used Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the article doesn't explain the difference between the pre-war SFRY and the wartime FRY, nor should it, as that would be off-topic. As a compromise, I've restored the term "rump Yugoslavia" but linked it to Joy's "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", so that if anyone is confused, which to be honest I doubt, they can always click on the link and find out more. Prioryman (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it specifically for the human element - as you say, it personalises the story. Prioryman (talk)
  • I've shortened it significantly, as a large amount of the quote wasn't really essential. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rump" simply means "remnant". I really don't agree with the proposition that article content should be governed by an assumed lowest common denominator of the reader's knowledge. As a further compromise I've reworded this as "Serbia and Montenegro, which had formed the rump state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which should make it abundantly clear what the FRY was and that the term is not in any way POV. You'll note that the FRY is already listed on that page. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll invite opinions from WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, but it seems to me to be a very strange ground on which to oppose a nomination. If a hypothetical 15-year-old American kid reading the article gets the sniggers because he sees what he thinks is a synonym for "ass" that's unfortunate for him, but it shouldn't be our concern, nor should we censor ourselves because of his ignorance. It's a completely unobjectionable, widely used term (see [2] for many recent examples). And with a link provided to the context in which it's used, i.e. rump state - a distinction which is absolutely necessary to avoid confusion with the pre-war Yugoslavia - I don't see how it cause any confusion whatsoever. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia referring to "rump states" [3]. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Rump state" is a precise and widely used term for what the article is referring to. Interestingly, the featured article on William III of England managed to survive not one but two FARs with the term rump state in it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand how it might be read with an implication of contempt. The first use of the word in this context was in the phrase used by Clement Walker to describe the Rump Parliament as "This fagge end, this Rump of a Parliament with corrupt Maggots in it." DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the context in which the word is used in this article. The Oxford English Dictionary gives three related definitions. The one you're referring to is II.4.a, "A small, unimportant, or contemptible remnant or remainder of an (official) body of people, esp. a parliament" (specifically with reference to the Rump Parliament, which was certainly a POV term back in 1649 but isn't exactly controversial now). That's not the meaning I'm using, which is II.4.c, "The rest or remainder of a thing; a remnant", which has no POV implications whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the OED's first quoted use of the term "rump state" is actually from an American source of 1893, and its most recent quotation is precisely the context in which I'm using it, from the Wall Street Journal in 2000: "A mandatory-retirement proposal to force Mr. Panic, the former prime minister of the rump-state of Yugoslavia, and several other directors to step down." Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, don't worry about this, I value your time. The pre-Murdoch WSJ quote is very helpful; they used to have excellent copyediting. If no one can find something reliable that supports my position, I'll have to give in on this one. Garner's, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and all my online sources are letting me down here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in terms of online sources, try these several thousand for examples. It's the standard term in the literature, as it was and is still necessary to distinguish between the pre-war and post-war Yugoslav states. Anyway, thanks for your forebearance and your help in reviewing this article. Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I might add that The Independent, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, New York Times and Wall Street Journal Europe all used the term ("rump Yugoslavia") in exactly the same context.) Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding research, Timbouctou and Prioryman. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm glad we got it sorted out. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I think it reads well, but I'm not in a position to judge on the sorts of things raised at the FAC and above. Reference usage and style seems very good, the level of detail exemplary and no signs of a bias outside of the odd sentence where that bias is subsequently balanced or viewpoint questioned. Would be happy to see this go back to FAC in time for the anniversary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I've been asked to check whether the concerns I raised at the previous FAC have been adequately addressed. Some of them have. I did not redo spotchecks at this point. Others:

  • Not really. Holding it was more important to the Serbs than the Croatians - it was strategically important as a base for controlling the region, but its loss did not substantially harm Croatia's overall strategic position as it was far from the Croatian heartland and gave the Serbs little significant military advantage. The loss of a central Croatian town like Gospić, which was also a key strategic flashpoint, would have been a very different story. I've added some words to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... or Maslenica, Zadar, Šibenik - targets of parallel Operation Coast-91. Or Karlovac - have a look at the map at Croatian War of Independence#1992: Ceasefire that shows the choke points. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. See Prioryman's response to my point above. Some news agency reports do not have page numbers. --Eisfbnore • talk 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that, but offline newspapers do, and there's still a few of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, the following are the missing ones:
  • Champion, Marc (20 November 1991). "UN envoy inspects ruins of Vukovar". The Independent (London).
  • Radin, Charles A. (26 November 1991). "Reflecting on a battle's losses: Fallen Croatian city's restless defenders rue past and wonder what's next". The Boston Globe.
  • Tanner, Marcus (20 May 1991). "Croats likely to vote for independence". The Independent (London).
  • Resolved - they now all have publisher info. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions. I think this pretty much concludes the A-class review - thanks to everyone who has participated. There is one outstanding issue, that of the three missing newspaper numbers, but I should be able to sort that out tomorrow. Due to the short time left before the anniversary I've now moving this back to FAC to take care of any remaining issues. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can treat this as a request to withdraw this nom, particularly as it's now been listed at FAC -- will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More