Talk:Siege of Kijevo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	the SAO initialisation should be in full in the lead and first mention in the bodyY torched is a little colloquialY
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	suggest the first sentence ends with Independence, then The 9th Corps of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) led by Colonel Ratko Mladić and the forces of the Serbian Autonomous Oblast (region) of Krajina (SAO Krajina) under Knin police chief Milan Martić besieged the Croat-inhabited village of Kijevo in late April and early May 1991. The initial siege was lifted after negotiations that followed major protests in Split against the JNA.Y weren't SAO forces involved in second siege? Lead just says JNA.Y given its importance as the first example of ethnic cleansing, that finding, and the trial and conviction of Martich should be included in the leadY
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	just a bit concerned about the Municipality source, it seems too close to the event to be reliableY
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	the infobox shows Croatia as a belligerent, but at best this is a potentially misleading generalisation. Croatia was not independent at this time, it was a constituent Republic of Yugoslavia. I suggest that you stick to the forces involved, which were really ethnic Croat police and militia from the area.Y link Serbs of Croatia at first mentionY the Background section needs to be developed further to explain what the dispute was between the Croatian government and the JNA, what military and paramilitary resources the Croatian government had available to enforce its rule, and some basic information about the formation of the SAO Krajina and the Croatian response. Otherwise, there is insufficient context for the siege. This is not strictly about neutrality, more about providing the whole picture.Y
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	no problems
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	suggest the first map caption be changed to The location of Kijevo within Croatia. Areas controlled by the JNA in late December 1991 are highlighted in red.Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing. Well done.

Thank you very much for taking time to review the article. I have tried to edit your suggestions into the article to improve it. I am also not too happy about the municipality source and have trimmed away all except one reference to it, establishing the time of arrival of the police to the village. I expect that the fact they had arrived there is non-controversial and the source is now used just to establish that point in the timeline, drawing no value judgments or analyses. If you prefer, that could also be removed without much harm to the article, but I think this particular instance does not reflect adversely on neutrality or reliability issues. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I need to have a closer look at the prose, but the article is in good shape. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)