Talk:1st Croatian Guards Corps

1st Croatian Guards Corps has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 25, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Balkan / European / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st Croatian Guards Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.	I've done a minor c/w, feel free to revert as necessary
	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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

Redirect to 1st Croatian Guards Brigade[edit]

GregorB, 1st Croatian Guards Brigade used to be a redirect to the this article (1st Croatian Guards Corps) since the 1st Croatian Guards Brigade (1. hrvatski gardijski zdrug) was a part of the corps and it is dealt with by the same article. I saw you have modified the redirect to the 1st Guards Brigade (Croatia) (1. gardijska brigada). I'm not quite sure what is better here since the latter is likely to be what is normally searched, but the sources (Balkan Battlegrounds) refer to the 1.HGZdrug as 1st Croatian Guards Corps. The problem being - of course - that a "zdrug" is an archaic term for "brigade" and the two units are virtually ~~synonymous~~ indistiguishable by name except from the "Croatian" explicitly included in the zdrug's name. I have no idea how to untangle this. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, the change of the redirect target made the hatnote in 1st Guards Brigade (Croatia) circular.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to decipher what was my rationale behind that edit, but I'm drawing a blank, that was long time ago. Could have made sense then, I suppose.

Zdrug is a historical term now, it's no longer in use? I'm not sure either how to resolve it, it's indeed far from obvious. GregorB (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I can tell, zdrug is no longer in use anywhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - none of the two are active units.

Actually, it only makes sense to revert the redirect to the HGZ article because the reliable sources use the term and for the sake of practicality - a considerable number of articles link to the redirect referring to 1.HGZdrug specifically. Basically, the only way one can land to the wrong "brigade" is if they type exact name of the Zdrug used in the Balkan Battlegrounds while wishing to read the other article. Such cases should be dealt with by a pair of descriptive hatnotes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Post war" section[edit]

I have removed a very short "Post war" section for several reasons. First, it adds nothing to understanding of the topic as referenced prose elsewhere clearly establishes that the unit was specifically used for the stated purpose of protection of the President of the Republic - including the postwar period (until 2000). Second: Nothing noteworthy occurred at the particular deployment. Third: The source used was less than reliable and several claims presented in the section were either entirely non-notable as "being ordered to protect the president until reinforcements arrive" in case of an attack (which was not expected and did not materialise) or dubious/editorialising (e.g. giving appearance that UNTAES was not in control of the area or citing "dozens" of soldiers awaiting in "hospital helicopter" - likely a medevac Mi-8 which cannot possibly carry more than 24 people without medical or heavy combat gear, much less with any of that).--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]