- 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) 14:22, 23 April 2016 [1].
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 7th Army was a Yugoslav formation which was responsible for the defence of north-western Yugoslavia along the Italian and Reich borders during the WWII Axis invasion of that country that commenced on 6 April 1941. It was quickly cut off and encircled before surrendering. The article was recently promoted to Military History A-Class, and has subsequently had a Background section added to improve context. I believe it now meets the FA criteria, but any and all feedback will be gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Caption of the first map should explain the meaning of the colours used for the dots
- q: see freedom of panorama explanation. Does this image qualify for FOP under those restrictions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikki, does the fact that the tunnel was built by Austrians and the area was part of Austria-Hungary when it was completed have any impact here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Under Austro-Hungarian law, would it have been PD for any reason while still part of Austria-Hungary? I suspect it would have been considered too utilitarian for protection at the time, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this reference, the 1895 Austrian act did not protect architecture. Does that address the issue? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I don't know whether there's any tag that would address this, so perhaps we can just make a text note to that effect on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work as usual. Prose is good. Just two points.
- The first line of "Mobilisation" talks about Simović's post-coup government. For comprehensiveness and context there should be a sentence or two clarifying when the coup occurred and how it prompted the invasion.
- The last paragraph of "Fate" should state that Yugoslavia was occupied and dismembered by the Axis. Not too much detail needed, just enough for a casual reader.
Otherwise, a job well done. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks 23, I'll make a start on adding these bits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, 23. Useful context, thanks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: excellent work as usual. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the government until 3 April 1941 out of fear..." I wonder if a short clause should be added to this clarifying why mobilization would have been required, e.g. "Despite concerns over a German invasion, orders..." or something similar. I think this, or something similar to it, should be added to the Mobilisation section, with potentially a small clause clarifying why the military coup occurred.
- slightly repetitious: "during the German-led Axis invasion of the Yugoslavia in April 1941, during..." (during and during in the same sentence)
- slightly inconsistent: "LI Corps" v. "LI Infantry Corps"
- missing comma: "detachment commanders, Hauptmann Palten led..." (probably need a comma after "Palten")
- "became the 7th Army area of operations..." --> "became the 7th Army's area of operations"?
- in the Notes "U.S. Army" is probably overlinked; same with "brigadier general"
- All done except the linking in the Notes. I've left them in, because the notes stand-alone, and pop up and are clickable, so if a reader wants to open a new tab and follow the link, they can. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Rupert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: Peacemaker67, where are we on addressing AustralianRupert's comments? Source review? --Laser brain (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Will get onto them right now. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review. The formatting of cites and sources is all in order, and the sources are all of high quality. The only ones that gave me pause were the websites by Niehorster but, as he is an expert in the field, they would appear to meet our criteria for self-published sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Coemgenus: Niehorster usually comes up in FAC/FLC source reviews, but I'd add that quite a few articles and lists that use Niehorster are already Featured. His work has proved to be absolutely spot-on when it comes to orders of battle and related subjects. Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: : this one looks to be ready for promotion. Can I have a dispensation to nominate a fresh one? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.