Talk:Siege of Varaždin Barracks

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Varaždin Barracks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:04, 1 December 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.	please replace the Background section with the Background section from the Battle of Kusonje article, except if there are differences in content Done. Ditto for another similar article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC) I will c/e the rest as part of this review LeadY Background (see above)Y PreludeY Order of battleY TimelineY the dates in "First hostilities" are unclear, what day does "By the end of the day" refer to? Clarified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC) who is Rukljić, and why is he attributed in-line? Commanding officer of the 104th Bde and the city defences (indicated in the prose itself). The bit is drawn from a newspaper interview with him.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC) AftermathY
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).	the Žabec citation doesn't link to the source (harv error)Y Fixed--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	were the weapons being transported from Hungary purchased by the Croatian government, what sort of weapons? The sources don't say. An educated guess would be that the weapons were likely purchased by or for the government, at least the planes were operated by government owned companies. Considering their relatively low payload capacity, I'd guess small arms, but both of those are no more than guesses.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC) did the YAF attacks damage or destroy any Croatian aircraft? What aircraft conducted these attacks? What damage was caused to the airfield facilities? According to Trifunović, YAF sortied two planes from Bihać AFB - which had at its disposal only MiG-21s. That would make an odd selection of craft, but not one unheard of during the war. Trifunović says nothing on the type of the craft explicitly though. One An-2 was destroyed, a "small crater" was made on the runway and the rest of the bombs landed in a nearby cornfield. The damage can be reliably sourced, but I'm not too keen on "inferred identification" of the jets. The article could say the planes sortied from Željava Air Base and let the readers infer that on their own. Any suggestion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Agree that's the best way to handle it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Added info as agreed. Actually, Čakovec Airfield raid (no reliably sourced details available) actually happened a couple days later, so that's moved accordingly. Interestingly, Trifunović's account of the first raid indicates that the attacking planes produced a sonic boom above the city - something subsonic Soko J-21 Jastreb, Soko G-2 Galeb and Soko G-4 Super Galeb could not do - reinforcing the case for use of MiG-21s (no MiG-29s were at Željava, and AFAIK were never used for ground attack in the war)--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	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.
	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.	there are no images in the article (except the map), but I think this is a deficiency given there are plenty of PD vehicle and weapon images available of the types captured at the end of the siege. These weapons are central to the article. Added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Just a suggestion, but this type of thing probably lends itself to a gallery presentation under the Aftermath section. I'll just check the licensing and this one should be good. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Licenses are fine. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I tweaked a few captions and moved one across to avoid image stacking down the right side. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for remaining points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Passing. Well done, suggest you take this to ACR. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)