Talk:Operation Swath-10

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane-91 vs Swath-10/Papuk-91

I was thinking of combining the lot into a single article, developing a separate one for Papuk or maintaining two existing ones for about two weeks before committing my notes into the writing. While it is possible to combine the whole thing, I see no benefit from such a course of action. (1) A possible pitfall from that would be having to describe two parallel actions which have very little to do with each other (other than in the area securing the Požega-Nova Gradiška road and in Kusonje). I fear that the result would be very confusing to casual readers. (2) The Swath/Papuk were fought primarily between ZNG/HV and the TO, while Hurricane hinged on JNA-HV combat rather than TO. (3) The units involved were different, only the 127th Bde having been deployed in Swath/Papuk and (the final few days of) Hurricane (but to virtually no effect). (4) The offensives were not even commanded by the same command structures - Swath/Papuk by Bjelovar operational zone (Col Jezerčić through Col Kovačević and Jezerčić directly), and Hurricane by Posavina operational group (Stipčić). Posavina OG itself was subordinated to Zagreb Operational Zone and therefore had nothing to do with Jezerčić (formally Nova Gradiška sector was subordinated to Osijek OZ (except for the purposes of Op Hurricane). Sources do not provide the slightest indication of coordination between the Swath/Papuk and Hurricane - I assume there must have been some, but there are no sources on them. The existing General Staff directions certainly do not mention any. The lack of coordination is plausible because the sources offered in the Hurricane article explicitly specify that the coordination between units deployed in Hurricane alone was difficult because of poor communication systems and the HV relied heavily on runners to carry information. In short, because of those four reasons, I decided against a single article. The Swath and Papuk are IMO best left in a single article because some sources conflate the two anyway and one was a follow-up of the other.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Swath-10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. The full review should be posted by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made a few minor tweaks to wording and linking. Please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed any meaning.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Aftermath, "but the verdict is still pending as of July 2013." Do we have any update on this, being now October? Also, the source covers the 2012 information, but not the pending verdict as of 2013. Do we have a better source for this, perhaps something talking about the length of time the verdict is taking. (Aside, is this an unusual length of time for a verdict?)

   • Actually no, no verdict yet. It was expected to be rendered on 30 October, but it appears to be postponed for an undetermined period of time per this NYT article. ICTY is very very slow - the trial is now nearly six years old (started in November 2006) per this case info sheet. I added the NYT article info if that's alright.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

   • Please make sure all references listed in the References section have attached footnotes. For example, I don't think I see the first source listed under "Other sources" used in a footnote, unless I missed it someplace.

   • That one's cite #37--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
   • I've double checked the rest of them and they all appear in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, very good. A couple of source/update niggles that I'd like to see worked out before I pass the article, but nothing major. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I'll try to address your concerns immediately.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so passing the article to GA status! Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)