Talk:United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia

Change of the title

I would like to move this article to "United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia"

The proposed new title is the official title of the UN mission as indicated by numerous sources, such as

• UNSC Resolution 981 establishing the mission
• Sabrina P. Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005 at pages xx (introductory section, explicitly equating the UNCRO acronym to the proposed title), 455, and 813

I am aware that the most common form of reference to the mission is the acronym, but based on the UNTAES article talk the acronym would not be an acceptable title (except as a redirect). The proposed article title has an added virtue that it is not only official but also disambiguating. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per my comments at [[1]]. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.

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.
	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.	Fine.
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.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	Listed, well done.

Comments

• three external links aren't quite right [2]. The two green ones are acceptable, but one is dead.
  • URL appears to have moved in late May. Fixed now.
• The issue raised by Antidiskriminator on talk is at least partly valid, IMO. There are a number of reliable secondary sources that refer to the Croat attack of 1 May 1995 on western Slavonia (ie Operation Flash) as an attack on a UNPA. Just one example is [3] p51. This issue needs to be properly addressed using reliable secondary sources, and not reliance on the primary documents. If there is a difference of opinion between reliable secondary sources, reflect it in the text. This is a war-stopper as regards GA.
  • Added info. Please recheck.
• throughout, the use of "the UNPROFOR/the UNCRO" etc, while correct in a strictly grammatical sense if the acronym was spelled out in full is actually unwieldy and not consistent with common English usage. Generally, the definite article is dropped when referring to units or forces by acronym. Thus, "The UNCRO sustained 16 fatalities for the duration of the mission" becomes "UNCRO sustained 16 fatalities for the duration of the mission". And "the Operation Storm" in the lead becomes just "Operation Storm", "the NATO" becomes just "NATO" etc. I have been unable to locate a policy or guideline for this, but it is clearly acceptable as it is used elsewhere on WP in high-quality articles (it is also in common usage).
• there is an issue with fn 60, the cite ref doesn't point anywhere. ie click on the fn and it doesn't take you to the HRW source.
  • Fixed.
• there are a few redlinks begging, I would have thought Crabbe and his successor would meet WP:SOLDIER, for example.
  • The two are redlinked now. I'll check for more during a c/e (per final point) shortly.
• I don't think you need the commas in the map legend.
  • Removed.
• The completion date should be in the infobox (put it after "Completed" perhaps, or in the footnote field) and the lead.
  • Since the infobox is quite wide anyhow, I added it after "Completed". Amended "early 1996" in the lead to full date.
• " Their objections were specifically to clearly expressed task of the UNCRO" is another example of wording needing a grammar c/e.
  • Tried to fix this. Please have another look.
• Watch past and present tense, eg "would inevitably escalate once the UN troops pull out" should be "would inevitably escalate once the UN troops pulled out", this is not the only example.
• overall, I suggest a thorough-going grammar c/e in addition to the above points.
  • Point taken. Will do immediately.

Placing on hold for seven days for these matters to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review the article. I tried to address most of the concerns and I hope to get the rest of them through another copyedit of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a c/e run through the article, hopefully mending it a bit. I'll take another look later on and I'll try to get some help from a native speaker on the issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've c/e'd and am happy with all the above. Just one last thing, the Daniel and Hayes cite doesn't have a home. Can you add it to the Refs? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Listed, well done, sorry about the confusion with "the". ;-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

UN protected or not?

There is an overcited sentence within this article:

The UNCRO was initially deployed to the same areas as the UNPROFOR in Croatia, however the relevant UNSC documents no longer referred to them as UNPAs—applying designations of Sector East, West, North and South, or "areas under the control of the local Serb authorities" instead

This sentence concerns me because the readers could be mislead to believe that areas under protection of UN did not exist after establishment of the UNCRO although numerous sources, many of them authored and published by UN, actually do refer to this areas of Croatia as UN protected. The nominator and me have already discussed this issue at the Operation Flash talkpage (link) in March 2013. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus the nominator wrote above sentence according to his point of view which I believe is based on his interpretation of the primary sources (five UNSC resolutions are cited). I think that perhaps this might be a possible violation of WP:CFORK and WP:OR which should be taken care of. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues I raised have not been resolved. On the contrary.

1. The above mentioned sentence is still in the article.
2. In the meantime another sentence with the same issues (also based only on the nominator's interpretation, now of the secondary sources) has been added to the text of the article. (Some sources refer to the areas of UNCRO deployment as UNPAs, while others reflect the UNSC practice and omit the acronym.)
3. Also, unsourced "abolishment of UNPAs" assertion has been added, which additionally develops nominator's position.

None of the sources used to support the first or second sentence do not discuss the naming issue of this areas nor any of them assert they were not under protection of UN after establishment of the UNCRO. On the contrary. Numerous sources, including many published by the UN, clearly refer to this areas as UN protected. Unless nominator can provide sources for his position (without his interpretations of the sources) readers should not be mislead to believe that areas under protection of UN did not exist after establishment of the UNCRO.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)