Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Winter '94

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Winter '94 edit

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and I would like to bring it to the A-class standard. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Hi Tom, thanks for bringing this here, and sorry it's taken three weeks for anybody to comment. I've made a few copy edits, but the prose needs some work, especially in the background section. Some specific comments are below:

  • Do operations leap 1 and leap 2 need to be bolded?
    • I'm not sure. Leap 1+2 were separate operations, performed as a follow-up of Winter 94. I appreciate that only the title of the article should be bolded in the lede on its 1st occurrence, but there are Operation Leap 1 and Operation Leap 2 redirects to this particular article, so I'm quite uncertain what to do. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of links in the background section; I've removed a few obvious ones, could you perhaps do an audit and see if you can get rid of some more?
  • The prose gets a bit choppy in the second paragraph of the background section
    • Revised a bit, hopefully mending the situation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • was deployed to Croatia to supervise and maintain the agreement Which agreement? You mention a series of unsuccesful ceasefires, but not one particular agreement
  • What does The conflict largely passed on to entrenched positions mean?
    • Front lines largely stabilized (little ground changed hands). Rephrased to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the capital, Sarajevo and elsewhere Sarajevo is a subclause, so you need a comma after it, otherwise it looks like a list
  • As 1992 carried on, it controlled about 70% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That doesn't make sense; do you mean to say that it controlled 70% by the end of 1992?
  • This was achieved through a large-scale campaign is a sloppy way to lead on from the previous sentence
    • Rephrased now. Could you have another look if this is a better solution?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was incompatible with Bosniaks' aspirations of a unitary state confronted by demands to partition the country. Doesn't make sense
    • Removed the confronted by demands to partition the country bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • while extent of the territory it controlled did not change significantly until 1994. Again doesn't make sense, though it would if "while" were replaced with "but the"
  • In addition, [...] Furthermore, is repetitive and you do it again in the next paragraph
  • The VRS push failed though, as well as efforts to contain the advance You probably don't need the "though" and "as well as" should probably be "as did" if I'm reading it correctly

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time and effort to review this article. I appreciate it very much and I trust the article will benefit from the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look over your changes and they look good. They've made parts of it quite a bit easier to read. It could do with a good proof read before it goes to FAC just to check for any lingering issues, but I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport Interesting article and from an initial pass looks in very good shape. I made some slight tweaks to the prose, please check these. Also: I can be nitpicky over reviews, so take some of these merely as suggestions :)

  • My first comment is that the opening to the lead doesn't quite set the stage (I have no idea of the background to the Croatian War of Independence, so it would be worth setting the context more). Your background section is pretty long, but very little is summarised in the lead. A couple of sentences encompassing the overall situation, the protagonists and the broad aims surrounding the operation would be beneficial. In particular, I feel, it would be good to emphasise what each side was fighting for.
    • I had to think and try few versions of the addition on offline as I tried to strike a balance between being too terse and straying in to too much detail. I think I got some sort of balanced addition - the main problem being that if more than this is added, it gets increasingly complex requiring additional clarifications and resulting in the "background" of the size the article suffers from right now. Hope this is a sufficient improvement. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government of Croatia; No link?
    • Wikilinked now.
  • By March 1991, the conflict escalated to war: the Croatian War of Independence.; seems contrived. Consider just say By March 1991, the conflict escalated into a war of independence.
    • Modified a bit. Since there are two wars involved - Croatian and Bosnian - I thought to keep the modifier. If you feel it is not necessary, I'll remove it though.
  • the Agreement; not sure this is a proper noun (i.e. no caps needed)
    • Rephrased the passage. Could you take another look at it?
      • Ah, sorry I only meant the second "Agreement" (the first use is clearly a proper noun :)). But your rephrase is fine too.
  • a new Bosnian Serb army. The Bosnian Serbs; are these the same group? It's unclear.
    • Yes they are. What do you propose as a clarification?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As its the same group that's fine. I was just checking to be sure.
  • Just as a general note - you utilise a lot of acronyms. I appreciate why, but it might be worth spending time going through the prose to see if you can replace some of them with more general terms (i.e. "the army" etc.) where grammatically appropriate. I won't oppose over that, but it might help things flow.
  • I'm not sure how relevant the last paragraph to the background section is, does it tie into any other part of the article?
    • It is generally meant to provide context. The passage is actually result of the article's GAR. Do you have a proposal to amend it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if it were me I'd just cut all of the ethnic cleansing stuff on the basis it is a distraction and not directly related to this article.
        • Is this a dealbreaker here? I appreciate benefits of a concise background section - and the initial incarnation (pre-GAR, that is) did not contain that passage. It was introduced through the GAR process, after the reviewer pointed out the information was missing. I'm quite prepared to remove the info if need be, but I'd prefer to have a consensus formed by several reviewers either here or at a FAC (presumably following successful ACR). OTOH, if the passage is a dealbreaker, I'll remove it right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. As you say you've had two different viewpoints on it. Although I suspect FAC will raise the matter, which is why I mentioned it :) --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's quite alright. I don't mind resolving the issue one way or another, as the matter is not central to the article topic - I'd just like to establish a consensus for either of the two options.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The paragraph is now gone per consensus reached here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • neared the town's capture; this is a bit stodgy and also vague. We're they "near" geographically (which is the implication) or did they make ground in other ways?
    • The frontline was never too far from the town (say less than 5km). In this case, yes the two armies managed to advance geographically and inflicted losses on their opponent jeopardizing further defence. Rephrased a bit. Please have another look.
      • Much better!
  • Bihać was seen as a strategic area; it was thought that its capture by Serb forces would intensify the war,; by who?
    • Added clarification.
  • Following a U.S. military strategy endorsed by Bill Clinton since February 1993; I'm unsure if this is an example of US English, but "since" strikes me as the informal way of putting this. Is "in" more appropriate?
    • Yes it is. Amended.
  • a series of meetings between U.S. and Croatian officials was held ; as above, should this not be "were"
  • You have a lot of words ending in "ly"; these can be vague and wishy washy, so run a search and see if they are really needed.(see [1])
    • Indeed there are many of those. I had a quick look and some could be avoided by rephrasing few sentences. Do you find any specific ones particularly problematic?
      • No, nothing specific. This is just general advice I often hand out in reviews :)
  • Try and avoid too many semi-colons. Usually you can replace it with a comma or new sentence, for better flow/structure.
    • Removed some of them now. I'll take another look at those though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now :) --Errant (chat!) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this now. --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [2] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [3] (no action required).
    • A few of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [4] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
      • I think I managed those now, could you have a look if those are fine now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images all seem PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [5] (no action required).
    • A couple of duplicate links that need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Cetina
      • Drvar
    • I think the article has some issues with focus - as the bulk of the article actually seems to be about events other than the title. Specifically I'm a bit unclear on the connection b/n Operation Winter and Leap 1 and 2. Were Leap 1 and 2 part of Operation Winter or were all three subsets of a wider campaign? If the later it might pay to refocus the article on the overall campaign in my opinion (i.e. rename and restructure - probably wouldn't require much rewording), including each operation as a separate 2nd level heading. Currently the name of the article and the structure you have chosen suggests to me (wrongly it seems) that Leap 1 and 2 were subsets of Winter 94. Confusingly you write "Operations Winter '94, Leap 1 and Leap 2 formed a unified military action" but then clarify that Leap 1 and 2 were separate and were conducted to exploit gains from Winter 94. Equally the background seems too large, outweighing the coverage of the actual operation itself.
      • I must admit I've looked at solution used before in the Operation Southeast Croatia in this respect. I chose to include Leap 1 and 2 in this particular article because they were offensives designed to improve Croatian Army positions reached in the Operation Winter '94 on a tactical level. They were not as ambitious in a strategic sense as the Operation Summer '95 which also exploited successes of the three preceding advances, but it also set a strategic objective of cutting the major supply line to the RSK capital. I still felt that the Leap 1 and 2 needed separate boxes as separate operations though. I wouldn't mind splitting the two Leaps away if there's such a consensus here. Simply retitling the article as a XYZ Campaign with a section for Winter '94 would not work really, as the campaign (with no particular name given by the Croatian Army or the HVO or the press) also included the Operation Summer '95, and possibly the Operation Cincar. In turn, I could 1) write an article summarizing the campaign (with or without Cincar per consensus reached on the matter), plus split the Leaps into separate articles or 2) split the Leaps with no campaign article (if the lack of name is an obstacle to such an article) or 3) leave things as they are or 4) demote Operation Leap 1 and Operation Leap 2 sections to subsections within a new section titled "Follow-up operations". I'm quite open for any course of action on this point per consensus, although option 4 appears a to be a simple solution offering a more clear solution regarding relationship of the three offensives. The remark about the three operations representing "a unified military action" was made by General Ante Gotovina, commanding officer on the ground in all those offensives.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gday again. Given the issues with not having a name for the campaign I think option 4 sounds quite workable to me. At a later date you could consider splitting as well though (and keep a summary of Leap 1 and 2 in this one) and move the additional infoboxs to that location. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding length of the background section: Length of the background is (at least in part) an unfortunate consequence of the offensive being a part of two wars. While the battle was largely fought in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in a small part in Croatia), with immediate objectives directly related to the Bosnian War, the overall goal of the campaign was to weaken defensive position of the RSK and therefore a part of the Croatian War of Independence. Finally the battle was fought by Croatian Army and Bosnian Croat HVO, Winter '94 under nominal command of the HVO and de facto command of the Croatian Army, while the two Leaps were formally and factually directed by the Croatian Army alone. Review done by Errant above suggested removal of the last section of the background since it appears to be fairly irrelevant to the article coverage. We reached a conclusion there to seek advice of further reviewers on that issue, and since you pointed out that the background should be trimmed down, would you support his proposal?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I agree with Errant's proposal here, although given the fact that it has already been considered as part of the GA review its a little more vexing. Probably best to see what others think first. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support for the removal duly noted. Will wait for a consensus to build as suggested. Trimmed the background section a bit, and if there is a consensus to remove the last paragraph, there's also the last sentence of the first paragraph that could go then too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Trimmed down further. Removal of the last paragraph of the "Background" section still remains a possibility though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple infoboxes make the article look cluttered to me - could they somehow be included in an overarching infobox (suggestion only - would work if the main infobox focused on the overall campaign)
      • I trust this issue will be addressed through resolution of the Leap 1+2 remaining in the article or being split off per above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is poorly worded: "By March 1991, the conflict escalated to the Croatian War of Independence." Suggest rewording to something like: "By March 1991 the conflict had escalated, resulting in the Croatian War of Independence..." or something like that. Alternatively you could use a piped link for Croation War of Independence.
    • Unclear what you mean here: "The HV cycled up to 9,000 troops in the area...", "cycled" seems like jargon to me. Consider rewording.
      • I meant to say that 9,000 troops were deployed to the area, although not all at once, but in several "shifts". I'm not sure what would be the right expression. Could you suggest a better solution?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps something like: "The HV deployed up to 9,000 troops in the area on rotation during the Operation Winter '94 (keeping no more than 3,000 – 4,000 troops on the ground at any time)..." Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Amended as suggested. Rotation is the right expression here, thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacobs, Steven L. (2009). Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739135891 doesn't appear to have been used as a short citation so should be moved to a "further reading" section.
    • Overall this article is quite well written in my opinion and there are only a few minor technical issues which can easily be resolved. That said I'm concerned about focus and think this at least needs to be discussed before I would be comfortable with supporting. Happy to get opinions of other editors that disagree (in which case I will strike the cmt if there is consensus). Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for taking time to review the article. I have already attempted to address some of the issues you raised, but I need some feedback on the others as described above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is certainly more focused now given recent changes and I'm pretty happy with how it has advanced. I have had a another look and have a few final points:
          • I would still support removal of the last paragraph of the background section but its not a war stopper for me;
            • Removed per consensus reached by reviewers here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • fn 27 Calic 2012 doesn't have a corresponding long citation so pls add this;
            • Switched to a better source and fixed the issue in the process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • still feel removing the additional infoboxs would be beneficial (am hoping someone else might have an opinion about this - if there are no takers in a couple of days I will change my vote to support though as its probably not a major issue if no one else is concerned about it). Anotherclown (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm inclined to agree, it would probably be better to remove the additional infoboxes, but I don't think it matters for A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would it be an issue at a possible FAR?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not sure - maybe just keep them and see if the issue gets raised at FAR? Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my support now however just one final point - the long citations in the "Books" section in the Reference lack a location of publishing. Could these also be added? Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: I usually try to steer clear of reviewing articles from this era in the Balkans at GAN for perceived COI reasons, but I am happy to jump in here at ACR alongside others. I'm going to have a crack at a bit of c/e (as suggested) and some tightening up. I'll wait to see how my edits are accepted then list any remaining comments. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a crack at the lead. Let me know what you think, Tom? Feel free to change anything, especially if I have changed meaning. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for stepping forward. The c/e looks just great, no objections whatsoever.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related note, could you venture an opinion on the proposed removal of a paragraph per proposal made by user Errant above?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mind if I have a crack at the rest of the article? It might address a few of the outstanding points from other reviewers. Over to you though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all, please do so. Could you please also comment on the proposed removal of the last paragraph of the Background section (included per GAR, removal supported by most or all other reviewers here, I'm leaning towards removing it too)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry Tom, I missed that. Yes, I believe it should be removed for the same reasons as Anotherclown et al. I'll get stuck in to the c/e. Feel free to revert the egregious screw-ups. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK), later established in those areas, declared its intention of integration with Serbia is very clunky, who declared it and when? Was it perhaps "The leaders of the Croatian Serbs, later formalised into the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK), declared their intention to unify the territory they controlled with that of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. This was viewed as secession by the newly-elected government of the Republic of Croatia. (you might need to explain how the "Socialist" was dropped from the name but it was not yet a separate nation-state). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that sounds better. Since the "Socialist" attribute was dropped, how about a piped link to Serbia? Also, I'd change the "Teritorijalna odbrana" to "Territorijalna obrana" for Croatian TO as that's the name in Croatian used before the 1990s too (per title of this TO manual).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy with that, but it is important to ensure readers understand that this is prior to the declaration of independence and ensure people understand that these were federal units at this stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the second thought (and after some checking), perhaps "Socialist Republic" should be used in the link - which might serve to indicate status of the federal unit, especially since it appears that Serbia dropped the "Socialist" attribute on 28 September 1990 (per Kelly, p.178). Of course nothing need be simple. In August 1990, it was Socialist Republic. At the time of Croatian declaration of independence (June 1991) it had already dropped the "Socialist", and by the time the RSK declared it separate from Croatia (December 1991), Croatia was formally independent (since October) and recognized by few countries (by Germany on the same day the RSK declaration was made).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • so long as it is correct and clear what the situation was at that time. I agree nothing is simple here, esp for readers not familiar with the place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about this: After two unsuccessful attempts by Serbia, supported by Montenegro and Serbia's provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo to obtain Yugoslav Presidency's approval of a JNA operation to disarm Croatian security forces in January 1991,(Hoare 118-119) and a bloodless skirmish between Serb insurgents and Croatian special police in March,(Ramet 384-385) the JNA itself, supported by Serbian and its allies, sought the federal Presidency to give it wartime authorities and declare a state of emergency. The request was denied on 15 March, and the JNA came under control of Serbian President Slobodan Milošević. Milošević, preferring a campaign to expand Serbia rather than preservation of Yugoslavia, publicly threatened to replace the JNA with a Serbian army and declared that he no longer recognized authority of the federal Presidency.(Hoare 119) By the end of the month, the conflict had escalated, resulting in the Croatian War of Independence.(NYT 3 March) The JNA stepped in, increasingly supporting the insurgents, and preventing Croatian police from intervening.(Hoare 119) In early April, leaders of Serb revolt in Croatia declared their intention of integration of the area under their control, viewed by the Government of Croatia as a breakaway region, with Serbia.(NYT 2 April) - I know this is a considerably longer version of the timeline, but it unambiguously points out the existence of the federation and establishes the JNA's degree of involvement in the politics. On the downside, if this is a usable version, the RSK need be spelled out later on (per chronology). The refs in round brackets would of course be replaced with proper ones. Is this too long? What would you change?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the JNA retreated to Bosnia and Herzegovina where further conflict was anticipated.[14] However, Serbia continued to support the RSK this is insufficient to explain the background on the JNA involvement. My memory is that the JNA did not withdraw for months and when they did they left the RSK with much of their heavy equipment, esp tanks, arty and heavy inf wpns such as 12.7 MGs and mortars. Once that is explained, the actions of Serbia could be detailed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. How about using the first sentence of the "Aftermath" section of the Vance plan article (modified as necessary) and the source offered there? Would that work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • First couple of sentences. Armatta is an excellent source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll address this right away, let me have a couple of minutes with the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Info added. I'm still struggling to come up with a solution for the "Socialist" issue above though. As soon as I conjure something up, I'll post here first for your feedback.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The January ceasefire also allowed the JNA to hold onto the positions in East and West Slavonia, which were on the brink of military collapse Begs the question why, and needs explanation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some explanation provided, could you verify that the piped link is not an WP:EGG though?.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Maslenica: I suppose there was some shooting at the time in Lika as well, but the offensive was really confined to Northern Dalmatia (as supported by Balkan Battlegrounds p.268).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so as it says whereabouts. "Operation Maslenica" doesn't.
        • I've had a look through the whole article now, and while there are improvements that could be made in terms of the prose and explanations of the complex carrying-on that occurred, I believe it now meets the A-Class criteria with a slight question about the citation style. I suggest you go with one system or another. The system you are using, which appears to be a hybrid of ref names and sfn is still resulting in uncombined cites such as Ramet p.382. If you just use sfn you won't have to use named refs. The article will need a prose tidy and minor c/e if you are intending to take it to FAC. If that's the intention, once through here I suggest you leave it alone for a week or two and then go through it line by line with fresh eyes before nominating it for FAC. If you'd like a hand with that let me know? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over)
          • Thank you for your review and great help. I would like to take the article to FAC, so I'd really appreciate your help with preparation needed before that step is taken. I appreciate your advice re leaving the article alone for a while, and that's exactly what I'll do. I still have to implement Implemented one change you pointed out in the review above, and I'll look into the cite format issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ramet p.382 cite repetition fixed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I only had a quick look, as it seems that the others have provided comprehensive reviews. I made a couple of tweaks and have the following comments:

  • which English variation does the article employ? I see a mixture at the moment, for instance: "centered" (US); "Defense" (US), but "favourable", "Defence" and "kilometre" (British);
    • Was intended to be British English, I'll have a look at those shortly (avoiding edit conflicts with current c/e process).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed the two cited examples, but I'll check for more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, for the works that are chapters (the works by Bieber; Bjelajac & Zunec; Hoare; and Woodward), if possible, could you please add a page range? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Winter_%2794&oldid=1075714177"