Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. "It was commonly known as the Blue Division" - This is not exactly an error, but the whole article only mentions the division was nicknamed "Blue Division" and not why? Their badge is composed of red, white, and black colors, so it seems rather unpredictable. Is there no information exactly why this was their nickname? Also, consider moving this sentence to the lead where the article states the divisions names.

It is mentioned in the lead... in bold. It is not clear why, neither Schraml nor other key sources explain the origin. I will keep looking.

2. "One infantry regiment and the divisional artillery regiment formed in Döllersheim" - It appears the word "was" is missing between "regiment" and "formed".

Matter of opinion regarding the grammar, but I've added "were"

3. "Generalmajor (Brigadier) Johann Mickl" - Generalmajor does not translate as "Brigadier" nor is it the English equivalent of the word. The proper translation is "Major General".

A common misconception. While that is the correct translation, Generalmajor was not equivalent to Major general, it was equivalent to a US Brigadier general in WWII. I have added an explanatory note and source that I have used in other articles.

4. "Although originally intended for use on the Eastern Front, not long after its formation the Germans decided that the division would not be utilised outside the NDH" - I know what it says, but the problem with these using-words-or-arranging-sentences-in-an-untraditional-way is that they (or can) confuse the reader. However, as this could be a matter of personal opinion, I'm only suggestion a different wording.

Not intending to act on this comment, I think it pretty clear.

5. "The division returned to the NDH in January 1944 to combat the Partisans in the territory of the puppet state" - The previous sentence mentions that the Germans would not allow the division to be "utilised outside the NDH", but this sentence says they "returned in 1944 to the NDH" which must mean they were deployed elsewhere in the Balkans. Consider changing this sentence for clarity.

Done.

6. "It was known as the "Blue Division" (German: Blaue Division, Croatian: Plava divizija)" - Since this is the last mention of the Blue Division-thing, and the fact it's already mentioned in the lead, I don't see the need for this addition. If the GA-nominator (or other editors who worked on this article) insist on keeping this addition, consider changing it so as to match to the previous sentence. Example: "The division returned to the NDH in January 1944 to combat the Partisans in the territory of the puppet state, where it became known as the "Blue Division" (German: Blaue Division, Croatian: Plava divizija).

Well, it has to be included in the body, because it is not sourced in the lead or infobox, and needs to be sourced somewhere. I'm not sure it was only known as the Blue Division after it arrived in the NDH, so I won't amalgamate the sentences in the way you suggest.

7. "The division was engaged by the Partisans" - Consider changing the word "by" with "with". I'm not even sure it's grammarly correct to say "engaged by".

It is.

8. "On 16 January, Ogulin was relieved, but the advance was continued south to Skradnik, and villages in that area were also secured" - Why the word "but"? It seems rather misleading.

well, the purpose of the operation was to relieve Ogulin, but they went further.

9. "and after some close quarter fighting with the Partisan 13th Assault Division, captured and destroyed most of that division's supply dump northwest of Lokve" - It appears the word "they" is missing in between "Division" and "captured".

Again, a matter of opinion about the grammar, but I have added it.

10. "Some of the bodies of the dead soldiers were looted or mutilated" - Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to tell if a person was mutilated alive or dead. Does Schraml's book actually mention they were dead first?

The wording doesn't imply that, they found bodies, they were mutilated.

11. "Through the spring of 1944, the 846th Regiment used jadgkommandos" - As the article has done so far, consider adding a literal English paragraph translation of jadgkommandos.

added an explanation.

12. "In April 1944, Mickl was promoted to Generalleutnant" - Also here a literal English paragraph translation would be nice. (Generalleutnant translate as "Lieutenant General").

same as generalmajor, I've added a note.

13. "on 5 May 1945, Colonel General Löhr" - Why mention the first and last name of all the other generals in the article, but not in this sentence?

Good point, fixed, with explanatory note.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. 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

c. It contains no original research

The article uses Harvard reverences and book sources that contain ISBN and all the other source-information required.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article covers history, formation, anti-partisan activity, final battles, and order of battle. It's broad in it's coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is fairly stable and its content does not change significantly from day to day (with exception of improvements done in the face or preparation for the GA-nomination).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article contain three images all of which are on Commons and created for the purpose in this article. This is just a suggestion, but I would recommend enlarging File:Krbavsko polje.JPG per the length of the sub-section its in.

Good idea, done.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm of course going to pass it. The points made in the "Well-written" section is minor issues/suggestions. Good job people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much for the review, Jonas. I will address those comments later today. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • All comments addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)