Talk:Milorad Petrović/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this one over the weekend as it seems to have been waiting in the queue for several months. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: Nice work, as always, PM. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ext links all work; no dabs
everything appears referenced
is it necessary to wikilink U.S. Army in each footnote?
in the References, wikilink Hugh Trevor-Roper
in the References, wikilink The Journal of Slavic Military Studies and thr United States Army Center of Military History
in the References, can "Narodna knjiga" be translated, like the other publishers?
the nickname "Lord" appears in the infobox, but I couldn't find it in the body of the article
The couple had three children, two daughters... --> "The couple had three children: two daughters..."?
I wonder if there might be some other image that could be used in the body to break up the text a little, or a quotebox if he said something that was notable? (not a requirement, just a suggestion

Can't put my hands on one, but will see what I can find if I take this to ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

during the Balkan Wars, is there anything in the sources about whether he was involved in any notable battles, either directly or in a planning role?

Nothing in the sources, but again I will look into this more if I take this to ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petrović married Jovanka Stojančević: do we know when this happened?

Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When World War I broke out in 1914, Petrović was initially the commander of troops at the Belgrade Main railway station --> "When World War I broke out in July 1914, Petrović was in command of the troops guarding the Belgrade Main railway station"?
he commanded a camp at Valona in Albania: what sort of camp was this?
The Serbian Army withdrew from Albania to the Greek island of Corfu: when was the withdrawal completed?
to become the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes...: maybe clarify when it became Yugoslavia?
I found the prose a little choppy in some places, but it is hard to put my finger on it exactly. It is fine for this review, but might need a little work before ACR. For instance, these two sentences: On 3 March 1924 he was posted as acting chief of staff to the Chief of the General Staff, Armijski đeneral Milan Milovanović, at the Ministry of the Army and Navy. Milovanović was soon replaced by Armijski đeneral Petar Pešić. Maybe this might be smoother: "On 3 March 1924 he was posted as acting chief of staff to the Chief of the General Staff at the Ministry of the Army and Navy. Initially, he served under Armijski đeneral Milan Milovanović, but Milovanović was soon replaced by Armijski đeneral Petar Pešić."?
sometimes you use introductory commas, and sometimes you don't. For instance, On 17 September 1923 he v. On 16 September 1930, Petrović
Hitler issued Führer Directive 25 which: is it necessary to name the directive? I would probably just say "Hitler issued a directive which..."
veterans' association for those that --> "veterans' association established for those who had" or "veterans' association established by those who had"?
in the sources, is there any assessment of Petrovic's performance as a commander during the invasion?

Not that I can find. In reality, the Yugoslav situation was hopeless, and there was little that could be done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig indicates no copyright violation likely: [1] (no action required) AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up, AustralianRupert. It is the final piece in a GT expansion I've been working on. I've adopted your suggestions and think I've addressed all your points. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Overall, the prose is fine, although I would suggest a quick run through by another set of eyes before ACR. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

The article is well referenced, and sources appear reliable to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

There are a couple of minor points that might need further research (as noted above), but these may in fact not be covered in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No issues detected. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

Article appears stable and isn't subject to a current edit war. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

Single fair use image, with a rationale specifically for this article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Looks good, PM, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]