Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

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.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone a copyedit by the Guild and a GA review, and I believe it now meets A-Class. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions:
  • in the infobox, it might be better to display the estimated strength (e.g. ~ 17,000 personnel), etc. rather than "division";
    • Done, actually added the numbers to the unit size.
  • the table of contents is quite long and might benefit from adding {{TOC limit}};
    • Done. Good call, hadn't known about that before, thanks for the tip.
  • watch out for overlink. The duplicate link checker suggests the following might be overlinked: Nazi Germany, Obergruppenfuher, Artur Phleps, Islam, Muhamed Hadžiefendić, Croation Home Guard (Independent State of Croatia), Sarajevo, Gottlob Berger, Mostar, Banja Luka, Austro-Hungarian Army, Sava, Bijeljina, Majevica, Kosovo, Lopare, Kladanj, Vlasenica, Osmaci, Janja, Hans Hanke, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry, and Heinrich Himmler;
    • Pretty sure I got them all now.
  • quotation marks: I think the MOS prefers double as opposed to single. For instance, 'security zone' should be "security zone";
    • Pretty sure I got them all now.
  • "but these were of limited value and only one, the Tuzla-based Home Guard 'Hadžiefendić Legion' led by Muhamed Hadžiefendić was of any significance" (probably needs a comma after "Hadžiefendić");
    • Done.
  • I think that there is a missing quotation mark somewhere here: "...the north in Syrmia. 'Srem (Syrmia) is the breadbasket of Croatia, and hopefully..." (or it might be the single quote mark, which should be changed to a double quote?);
    • Done.
  • "with SS assistance, with familiar regimental such as Bosna, Krajina and Una" (I'm not sure what is meant by "familiar regimental" - can this be clarified?);
    • Done.
  • "Pavelić and Kasche was concerned" --> "Pavelić and Kasche were concerned"?
    • Whoops. Done.
  • "began an 18 day recruiting tour through" --> "began an 18-day recruiting tour through" (add hyphen for adjective)
    • Done.
  • inconsistent English variation "organising" and "organizing";
    • Done.
  • "Himmler's dismay, 2,800 Croat Catholics were inducted" (perhaps clarify why he was dismayed);
    • Done.
  • inconsistent presentation: "sixty percent" v "10%";
    • Done.
  • "its officer corps was almost entirely German but it was about one third short of its goals in both officers and NCOs". Perhaps try, "it was still about one third below its establishment for both officers and NCOs and its officer corps remained almost entirely German";
    • Done, good suggestion.
  • "assistance of the unit Imam, Halim Malkoć and" (probably need a comma after "Malkoć");
    • Done.
  • inconsistent English variation: "labor" and "labour";
    • Done.
  • "The fez was chosen by Heinrich Himmler because it had having been worn" (typo: "had having");
    • Done.
• I stopped at "Silesia" because it is late here. I will come back in the next few days and go through the rest of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • in between the Silesia and Anti-Partisan operations section, I don't think it is mentioned when the division completed training and left Silesia. Do the sources say when this happened?
    • Fixed.
  • I think this might be out of place: "SS-Handschar also participated in a number of other divisional and corps-sized anti-Partisan operations between March and September 1944" (this is currently in the "Anti-Partisan operations March to May 1944" section, but the dates seem to put it out of scope);
    • Fixed, clearly an oversight from an earlier version. Good pick-up.
  • inconsistent presentation: Operation Mailbaum v. Operation Wegweiser;
    • Fixed.
  • "Sauberzweig claimed the Partisans suffered 573 killed and 82 captured" --> I don't think you have formally introduced Sauberzweig yet. He is mentioned in the infobox and in a picture caption, but doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article before this point, so some clarification as to who he is, is required;
    • Whoops, thanks. Sorted.
  • "The Partisans were operating from particular forests around Bosut and villages along the Sava. The Partisans avoided decisive engagement and withdrew to the south-east..." --> "The Partisans were operating from forests around Bosut and villages along the Sava. As the division entered the area, the Partisans withdrew to south-east, avoiding decisive engagement."
    • Good suggestion, thanks.
• Stopped at Operation Save. More to follow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Begun on 15 March 1944, the objective of Operation Save" --> possibly could be reworded. Perhaps try, "On 15 March 1944, Operation Save was launched with the objective of clearing Partisans from the Semberija region..."
    • Agree, done.
  • inconsistent presentation "north-eastern" and "northeastern";
    • Fixed.
  • "Sauberzweig also ordered that each commander read a prepared message as his unit crossed the Sava River, which emphasized that the "liberation of Bosnia" and ultimately the liberation of "Muslim Albania" was their goal, directly appealing to their Albanian troops"' Perhaps reword: "Sauberzweig also ordered that each commander, as his unit crossed the Sava, read a prepared message directly appealing to their Albanian troops by emphasizing that the "liberation of Bosnia" and ultimately the liberation of "Muslim Albania" was their goal."
    • Not quite the intent, I have broken up the sentence and emphasised the dual appeal. Cheers.
  • "units sent out company strength reconnaissance" --> "company strength units were sent out to conduct reconnaissance."
    • Agree, fixed.
  • "to reach an important economic objective for the German war machine, the Ugljevik coal mines" --> "to reach the Ugljevik coal mines, an important economic objective for the German war machine."
    • Agree, fixed.
  • probably a proper noun here, so it should have a capital letter: "its 1st battalion (I/28), made up of " (1st Battalion);
    • Done.
  • "During the final phase of Operation Osterei, I/28 (made up of Albanian soldiers)" --> remove "(made up of Albanian soldiers)" as this repeats the bit in the previous paragraph "1st battalion (I/28), made up of Albanians";
    • Good point, thanks.
  • "In the latter part of Operation Osterei, Jagdkommandos, lightly armed and mobile "hunter teams" of battalion or company strength were" (probably needs a comma after "strength");
    • Done.
  • "between 21–23 April" --> "between 21 and 23 April."
    • Done.
• Stopped at Operation Maibaum. More to follow. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • are these the same unit: "Partisan Third Bosnian Corps" and " Partisan 3rd Corps"? If so, they should be presented consistently;
    • Done, I also made all the refs to divisions and brigades consistent.
  • this doesn't quite make sense: "According to divisional commander Hampel, had been exhausted even before Operation Hackfleisch began" (as it's not a full sentence).AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • "File:Svečano otvaranje džamije 18.8.1944.jpg": the image licence here should be checked. It relies upon "life of the author plus 70 years", but says the author is "unknown";
    • Removed pic, not justifiable if non-free.
      • Unfortunately the image is now deleted, and it looks like a bad decision, as both the deletion rationale and the support vote are based on misguided arguments. "If the author is unknown, how can we know when the author died?" We don't have to, the Croatian copyright law is quite clear in this respect, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Croatia. "No reason to assume the author is really unknown". I'm not sure what "really unknown" is supposed to mean. I guess the author may be known to somebody, but if a reasonable bona fide effort to determine the author (short of hiring a detective agency) fails, then the author is unknown, and the burden of proof lies on the one who claims the opposite. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • the "Retreat to the Reich" and "The end of the division" sections could possibly be merged to reduce the number of headers, plus the first section is quite small (suggestion only);
    • Good idea, done.
  • I'd also suggest merging "Reputation and treatment of civilians" with the "Aftermath" as they seem to be related (suggestion only);
    • Good idea, done.
  • are all the links in the "See also" section necessary? My suggestion is to include the links in the body if at all possible. For instance, Waffen-SS is already linked in the article, so there is probably no reason to add it to the See also section;
    • Have got rid of it, they are all now in the article.
  • in the References, some of the works have publisher locations and some don't (e.g. compare Pavlowitch to Stein);
    • Fixed.
  • in the References, there is probably no need to include accessdates for courtesy links for books (this seems to be the general advice at FAC, at least);
    • rm, Dashbot had added most of them, don't know what's that about.
  • the Further reading section uses a different format to the References (note how the years are presented). These should probably be consistent;
    • Now consistent, couldn't find one of them so deleted it.
• Anyway, that is the end of my review. I've done some copy editing also. Please check you are happy with my edits and make any adjustments you see necessary. I will come back and take another look once you've taken a run through and once Dank has completed his copy editing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the review, it is a pretty long article. I've also added some red links for Partisan unit articles I'll be creating eventually, and a couple of free images from bundesarchiv. I'm fine with your edits, in future I will send an article to GOCE before ACR. Sorry about all the basic stuff, and thanks for persevering. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries at all. Happy to help and I learnt something new: I'd never heard about Muslim SS units before. Good work with finding those images. When Dank is done, I will be happy to support. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I've added my support above now based on Anotherclown's review, as I was just waiting for a second pair of eyes run through the article to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)#Denunciations and request for protection. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (see below)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [1] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The bulk of the images are all public domain or licensed and seem appropriate to the article. One possible issue:
    • File:Hampel and Chetnik.jpg - may need a fair use rationale
      • Can you clarify? The image page has a fair use rationale, do I need to do more?
        • Yes I see your point now - it is in the summary section. To make it clear (so as to avoid problems with the image police down the track) you might consider using the fair use rationale template in WP:FURG though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [4] (no action required).
  • This is a little repetitive: "The division initially operated within a designated "security zone" in north-eastern Bosnia within...", specifically use of "within" twice in the same sentence. Fixed.
  • Is there a reason for the use of parenthesis here: "An Islamic leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the (local) administration..." Seems redundant. Removed.
  • "of battalion or company strength" should probably be switched to "of company or battalion strength", as it seems more logical to list the a smaller force element before a larger one (suggestion only). Done.
  • This seems an awkward construction: "Hampel decided to develop a divisional-level operation", consider perhaps "Hampel planned a divisional-level operation..." Agree, Done.
  • Is there a missing word here: "As they broke out of encirclement to the north", consider perhaps: "As they broke out of the encirclement to the north…" Done.
  • Language here seems unnecessarily complicated: "At the dawn of the following day", consider perhaps "At dawn the following day". Done.
  • Not sure what you mean here: "moving to Barcs on the Drava river to rebuild…" Do you mean they were involved in the reconstruction of the Barcs? Or do you mean that the unit was withdrawn to refit/reconstitute? Might need to reword this to be more clear. Done, please check?
  • "Hampel escaped from a POW camp in Fallingbostel…", POW abbrev used here without previously introducing it. Fixed.
  • In the infobox it says the division was active 1943–1944, however from the text of the article it seems to have continued operations into 1945. Should the infobox be changed? Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing: the images seemed quite bunched up all being on the right, the map in particular causes a large amount of whitespace on my screen (might just be my browser though). You might consider alternating them per WP:PICTURE. Thanks, I have slightly reduced the map and re-positioned it, but it might just be your browser. Anotherclown (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much, I'll get right onto it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe I have addressed all your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Happy with those changes. The map still causes whitespace on my screen so it looks like a brower issue. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Per WT:MIL#Foreign military ranks and per WP:Checklist#clarity, the untranslated German ranks (such as Reichsführer-SS) need a translation at first occurrence, in addition to the link. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. All done now. Can be a little interesting translating some ranks, I've used Commonwealth equivalents. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• leo.org gives no hits for Freiwillingen (the word is Freiwilligen); however, it's possible that's some dialect. Freiwillingen gets a few ghits, but it would be an easy typo. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing. "placed only I/28 on some heights in their path": I don't know what that means.
• "I/28 included a large number of new recruits who had only recently joined the division and was protecting two batteries": I/28, including many recent recruits, was protecting two batteries
• "and/or": and? or?
• "III/27 rushed towards Janja from the west and came into contact": Don't begin a sentence with a numeral ... either write it out, or in this case, try: "Rushing towards Janja from the west, III/27 came into contact"
• "a period of static trench warfare developed for a period": repetition
• "Between 22–30 August": Between 22 and 30 August
• "All 38 men were found guilty and either sentenced to death (10) or prison terms of between five years and life (28).": All were found guilty; 10 were sentenced to death, and 28 received prison terms of between five years and life.
• - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • All done now. Thanks very much for the review. Let me know if you see anything else? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support on readability per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support Very good overall, I'll post few issues here as I read through the article:

• There's a mention of the "28th Slavonia Division". In the original, the division is called "28. slavonska divizija" with the Slavonia bit being an adjective - in effect I trust it should be "28th Slavonian Division". The latter solution would be supported by this source directly (there are several others similar available) and this one indirectly (as Dalmatian Division, but the structure is analogous).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • G'day Tomobe03. Thanks for your interest. The first ref you have linked to actually relates to the 28th Slavonian Division of the Royal Yugoslav Army, during the invasion of Yugoslavia by the Axis, so it's not relevant to this unit, which was a Partisan one. However, the second reference does relate to a Partisan formation, but not this one. I checked Google Books just to make sure I wasn't just taking Lepre's word for it, and there is only author who uses the title "28th Slavonian Division" to relate to this Partisan formation, and that is Vladimir Dedijer. So, on the basis that I have actually used Lepre as a source rather than a former Partisan, I think sticking to the "28th Slavonia Division" version is reasonable. Are you ok with that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed there appear to be more than one way to refer to the partisan formations, so I'm quite happy with what is already in the article as long as it is referenced and consistently applied throughout the article (and it is).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support! Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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.