Talk:Split Agreement

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Split Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe, glad to see you back from your trip--hope you had a good one. I'll be glad to take this review, though it may be 2-3 days before I get to it. Looking forward to it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! No problem, there's no rush. Thank you for volunteering.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks like another quality article: well written, well sourced, and clear even to an editor (myself) who gets easily confused about this chapter of history.

Here's a few minor suggestions:

• "the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) and the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK)" -- would it be possible to give a touch more context here? Perhaps an explanatory footnote mentioning the ethnic or national association of each force?
• Can you add a sentence explaining why a Bosnian town was so critical to the Croatian war effort? Why could Croatia not continue if it fell?
  • Added clarifications for both, but I wanted to avoid adding a note, as it may seem cumbersome. Is this alright now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Operation Sword 95" -- the other operations used the apostrophe "Winter '95", "Summer '94"-- is it correct not to have an apostrophe here?
  • Added an apostrophe. The '95 is meant as 1995 the same way as in the case of Summer and Winter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Prose is clear; spotchecks of English-language sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	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).
	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.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Minor changes

I've added SC as opposed to Bosnian and Croatian, removed excessive and unnecessary translations, and changed the urls to use google.com. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Defunct and out of use language. Why?

Is there any specific reason why Serbo-Croatian is used here when writing the original expression when neither Serbs nor Croatians don't use that failed project of a language any more? 89.201.184.50 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)