GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 23 editor ( talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this one.
23 editor (
talk)
18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as our paths have crossed, you've jumped to conclusions far too quickly to be considered an editor that I am comfortable interacting and/or working with, especially on an area as controversial as the Balkans. The fact of the matter is this: after a year of virtually no interaction between the two of us on Wiki, you've decided to bring up a discussion from nearly 16 months ago (one which I considered long-resolved) and use it to protest the fact that I intend to volunteer my time and effort to review an article which I've hardly ever edited. You claim that I "[seek] to diminish the significance of [Serb] crime(s)", even though I clearly stated that this was not the case (both in general, and in relation to the article in question— Siege of Srebrenica). You went ahead and made productive additions to the article and I welcomed your input. That was it. Now, this. Why all the beef? I haven't even started my review; and, as far as reviews go, I've done several GA reviews, including one at Talk:Saborsko massacre/GA1, and no one has ever had any complaints. Furthermore, your claim that my edits are mostly about the Bosnian War is utterly false. I mostly focus on World War II in Yugoslavia, Serbia during World War I and the Croatian War of Independence. Within this scope, I've written articles such as Baćin massacre, Jezdimir Dangić and Grand Anti-Masonic Exhibition, which are hardly "pro-Serb". The simple fact is that I wish to expand this encyclopedia using academic sources. I try to be neutral at all times, even if you wish to disagree. If that ruffles your feathers, then that's your problem. If you want to have a civilized discussion, fine. If not, stop wasting my time and disrupting what was meant to be a calm and collected GA review.
P.S., don't use vague language such as "your previous ties to the subject matter" and "unaffiliated to the subject". It can be interpreted many different ways, and generally suggests that the person in question is personally mixed up in something. 23 editor ( talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Your rude profanities aside, I've wrapped up with the "Background" section and will continue the review tomorrow. 23 editor ( talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Not quite, I still see "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks" and Milošević is listed as "former Serbian President", whereas he was the current president when the events in question occurred. 23 editor ( talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
"...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians from the atrocities..." 23 editor ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'll be going over some more points over the next several hours. 23 editor ( talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Estimates of victims
Characteristics of locations and procedures
National and International reactions
More to come. 23 editor ( talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not all, I'm afraid. You've still failed to introduce each set of concentration camps concisely and some of the copy-edit points haven't been fully carried out (endashes, etc). Please fix this quickly so I can continue the review. 23 editor ( talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an endash → –
23 editor ( talk) 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The article looks good for promotion. Just fix all the issues I raised and that should do it. 23 editor ( talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just come to my attention that there's citations in the lead. They shouldn't be there unless absolutely necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. What this means is that some of the content of the lead is either not mentioned in the article body or is being subjected to citation overkill. Therefore, I suggest you remove the refs and work into the article the assertations to which they pertain. Also, I suggest you reword the first sentence of the lead paragraph to: "An estimated 12,000–50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian War, and resulting Bosnian Genocide. Rapes were committed by all warring sides and women of all ethnicites were subjected to sexual violence, but the great majority of war crimes were perpetrated against Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) women by Bosnian Serb forces, who used rape as an instrument of terror as part of their programme of ethnic cleansing."
As for the concentration camps, they appear to be introduced concisely in "Characteristics of locations and procedures". Good job. 23 editor ( talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Leave the citations. As for the opening sentence, I was trying to make it conform to WP:MOSBEGIN, which stipulates that leads "should define the topic with a neutral point of view". Rapes committed by combatants of other ethnic groups are implied in a single half-sentence in the middle of the lead ("While women of all ethnic groups were affected by instances of both rape and multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) during the conflict..."). If anything, rape by Bosniak and Croat forces is under-reported in the lead.
I fail to see why my proposal gives undue weight, given that it quite literally echos the UN Security Council's findings mentioned under "Abuses against women": "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosniaks, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs..." and the assertion "Throughout the conflict women of all ethnic groups were affected, although not on the scale that the Bosniak population suffered..." attributed to Wood 2013, p. 140. All I did was take these statements and reword them, adding the figure of 12,000–50,000 women. 23 editor ( talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you ever going to alter the opening? 23 editor ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's most unfortunate. I'm failing this on grounds of neutrality. 23 editor ( talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 23 editor ( talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this one.
23 editor (
talk)
18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as our paths have crossed, you've jumped to conclusions far too quickly to be considered an editor that I am comfortable interacting and/or working with, especially on an area as controversial as the Balkans. The fact of the matter is this: after a year of virtually no interaction between the two of us on Wiki, you've decided to bring up a discussion from nearly 16 months ago (one which I considered long-resolved) and use it to protest the fact that I intend to volunteer my time and effort to review an article which I've hardly ever edited. You claim that I "[seek] to diminish the significance of [Serb] crime(s)", even though I clearly stated that this was not the case (both in general, and in relation to the article in question— Siege of Srebrenica). You went ahead and made productive additions to the article and I welcomed your input. That was it. Now, this. Why all the beef? I haven't even started my review; and, as far as reviews go, I've done several GA reviews, including one at Talk:Saborsko massacre/GA1, and no one has ever had any complaints. Furthermore, your claim that my edits are mostly about the Bosnian War is utterly false. I mostly focus on World War II in Yugoslavia, Serbia during World War I and the Croatian War of Independence. Within this scope, I've written articles such as Baćin massacre, Jezdimir Dangić and Grand Anti-Masonic Exhibition, which are hardly "pro-Serb". The simple fact is that I wish to expand this encyclopedia using academic sources. I try to be neutral at all times, even if you wish to disagree. If that ruffles your feathers, then that's your problem. If you want to have a civilized discussion, fine. If not, stop wasting my time and disrupting what was meant to be a calm and collected GA review.
P.S., don't use vague language such as "your previous ties to the subject matter" and "unaffiliated to the subject". It can be interpreted many different ways, and generally suggests that the person in question is personally mixed up in something. 23 editor ( talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Your rude profanities aside, I've wrapped up with the "Background" section and will continue the review tomorrow. 23 editor ( talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Not quite, I still see "Bosnians" being used instead of "Bosniaks" and Milošević is listed as "former Serbian President", whereas he was the current president when the events in question occurred. 23 editor ( talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
"...some Serbs tried to defend Bosnians from the atrocities..." 23 editor ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'll be going over some more points over the next several hours. 23 editor ( talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Estimates of victims
Characteristics of locations and procedures
National and International reactions
More to come. 23 editor ( talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not all, I'm afraid. You've still failed to introduce each set of concentration camps concisely and some of the copy-edit points haven't been fully carried out (endashes, etc). Please fix this quickly so I can continue the review. 23 editor ( talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an endash → –
23 editor ( talk) 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The article looks good for promotion. Just fix all the issues I raised and that should do it. 23 editor ( talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just come to my attention that there's citations in the lead. They shouldn't be there unless absolutely necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. What this means is that some of the content of the lead is either not mentioned in the article body or is being subjected to citation overkill. Therefore, I suggest you remove the refs and work into the article the assertations to which they pertain. Also, I suggest you reword the first sentence of the lead paragraph to: "An estimated 12,000–50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian War, and resulting Bosnian Genocide. Rapes were committed by all warring sides and women of all ethnicites were subjected to sexual violence, but the great majority of war crimes were perpetrated against Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) women by Bosnian Serb forces, who used rape as an instrument of terror as part of their programme of ethnic cleansing."
As for the concentration camps, they appear to be introduced concisely in "Characteristics of locations and procedures". Good job. 23 editor ( talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Leave the citations. As for the opening sentence, I was trying to make it conform to WP:MOSBEGIN, which stipulates that leads "should define the topic with a neutral point of view". Rapes committed by combatants of other ethnic groups are implied in a single half-sentence in the middle of the lead ("While women of all ethnic groups were affected by instances of both rape and multiple perpetrator rape (MPR) during the conflict..."). If anything, rape by Bosniak and Croat forces is under-reported in the lead.
I fail to see why my proposal gives undue weight, given that it quite literally echos the UN Security Council's findings mentioned under "Abuses against women": "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosniaks, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs..." and the assertion "Throughout the conflict women of all ethnic groups were affected, although not on the scale that the Bosniak population suffered..." attributed to Wood 2013, p. 140. All I did was take these statements and reword them, adding the figure of 12,000–50,000 women. 23 editor ( talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you ever going to alter the opening? 23 editor ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's most unfortunate. I'm failing this on grounds of neutrality. 23 editor ( talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)