Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2018 [1].


4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava river. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. This article had an abortive FAC back in 2015 where its structure was questioned, but since then it has been expanded and restructured, and its sister 7th Army, which is structured the same way, passed FAC in 2016. This article is part of a good topic that I hope to get to a featured topic eventually. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "subsequently": Search throughout, and make sure it's the word you want.
  • "The 8th Bomber Regiment at Rovine was even warned to receive orders": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Do the colours in the second location map mean the same thing as the ones in the first? If no, what do the colours represent in the second map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • This has been sitting around with few comments for a while now for some reason, will give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might look better if the images of the planes and the gun were right aligned so that they "face" the text. Would look more dynamic, and be in line with the guideline that states subjects should not face away.
  • Good idea, realigned a couple.
  • First footnote needs a source.
  • Done.
  • generalmajor is duplinked.
  • The image captions should also contain links to the subjects shown.
  • Done.
  • "defence of the Drava" Maybe add river, readers may not know what this is.
  • Done.
  • "on the Mura" Likewise, a bit esoteric, especially since you subsequently list towns, hard to know what is what.
  • Done
  • "with the Dravinja and Petrijanec" Likewise, the first appears to be a river, the second a town, you'd never know from reading the text.
  • clarified.
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study" I think it would be best to specify by who and when here.
  • Done.
  • "The Yugoslav historian Velimir Terzić describes" Why present tense?
  • "formation based on the headquarters" In? At?
  • no, it was based on the headquarters of the 1st Cavalry Brigade with units under command.
  • Does draught animal refer to anything but horses here?
  • I believe I read somewhere that heavy artillery was pulled by oxen.
  • Draught animal is linked long after its first mention.
  • Fixed.
  • Could be interesting to show some of these horses, if photos exist.
  • Sources for pictures of the Royal Yugoslav Army are scarce, unfortunately.
  • You mention "rebels" throughout, does this always refer to rebellious troops, or also to for example Ustaše? A bit unclear now.
  • Rebellious troops. Fifth columnists are referred to as fifth column or Ustase
  • "remnants of Yugoslav Army" The?
  • Fixed.
  • "Almost all of the Croat members of the 4th Army taken as prisoners of war were soon released by the Axis powers; 90 per cent of those held for the duration of the war were Serbs" Could this be elaborated? Was it because the Germans found the Croats more prone to cooperate?
  • The Germans used political promises to the Croats (in terms of independence) as propaganda during the lead-up and during the fighting. During the invasion they facilitated the proclamation of the puppet Croatian state which existed as an Axis quasi-protectorate throughout the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, hope some more reviewers will drop by soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaiser matias[edit]

  • "On 8 June 1940, the Yugoslav Supreme Command had issued orders..." Was there any specific reason for the orders being issued on this day?
  • Not that I'm aware of, I mean nothing in the source provides that info, but I suspect that defensive plans were updated following the commencement of the German invasion of the Low Countries and France. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The troops of the 4th Army included a high percentage of Croats." Is there any quantifiable number to go with this?
  • No, that is as specific as it gets. Given the cities from which the army was raised had very high proportions of Croats, it would have been a significant majority though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 18:00, Makanec proclaimed that Bjelovar was part of an independent Croatian state." The "About 18:00" sounds odd to me (I'd say "Around 18:00"); is that an Australian thing I'm aware of? I see a similar usage later on in the article ("About 09:45", and a few more), but also what I suggested ("around 08:00"; "around 14:00"), so would suggest staying consistent with one.
  • I was always taught to use "at" or "about" with times, so it might just be an Australianism, or maybe a Peacemakerism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these minor details, is overall good, and once addressed will support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Kaiser matias! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, mainly just wanted some clarification, which you got here. Happy with your explanations. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Hyphenate fifth column in fifth column elements
  • I think I got all these.
  • causing significant disruption to mobilisation and deployment "their"? mobilisation
  • Done.
  • Move the link for Armijski đeneral to first use. And the same for fifth column
  • Did the first, I think it already was for the second.
  • In your para on Detachment Ormozki, there seems to be very little that wasn't attached from other units. Other than the 1st Cavalry Brigade HQ and the 1st Bicycle Battalion, what belonged to the 1st Cavalry Brigade?
  • Well, based on their mobilisation centres, I suspect that the 6th and 8th Cavalry Regiments were subordinated to the 1st Cavalry Brigade in peacetime, but the source isn't that specific.
  • Čakovec but had no horses needs a comma after the town name (link?) and, similarly, Zagreb but had no animal transport
  • Done.
  • However, the effect of the rebellions and desertions within the 4th Army was significant within the flanking 2nd and 7th Armies What do you mean here?
  • I've reworded it, it caused a lack of confidence in the flanking formations, resulting in withdrawals
  • Cadet battalion?
  • Yep. Poor buggers.

Source Review[edit]

  • Made spot checks for Barefield, Krzak, US Army, and Shores et al. All cites confirmed, no close paraphrasing.
  • Both Niehorster 2018a and 2018b have been updated since the access date. Not sure if anything significant has changed, but they need to be checked.
  • Tomasevich and Trevor-Roper are known as highly reliable sources
  • No formatting errors in the References.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it over, PM, I think we can go you one better and promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.