The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

This is the second ACR for a series of articles about Yugoslav armies that tried to oppose the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the previous one being 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) which went through ACR in January this year. It will not be going to FA after this as it is apparently "non-standard" (a hybrid between a list and an article), but it will hopefully form part of a good-topic eventually, along with 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (next cab off the rank). Very interested in constructive feedback on this article, which I recently developed from GA standard using the 1982 Serbo-Croat language semi-official history of the invasion written by the eminent Yugoslav historian Vladimir Terzić. Thanks in advance! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Labels on the 6 April map are illegible
• File:Bunker_na_Blegašu.jpg needs a URAA tag, as does File:Yugo_History_map_of_invasion_7th_Army.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikki, done. The red pogs aren't supposed to have labels, is that what you mean? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - I can see that the blue ones are labeled, but for some reason on the 6 April map they are appearing several font sizes smaller than elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, fixed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: good work, just a few minor points from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• watch the emdash usage: from the MOS... "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between..." an endash should be used instead of an emdash (I fixed one for you);
• in the notes, this seems inconsistent: "Equivalent to a United States major general" v. "Equivalent to a U.S. Army major general". Is there a reason for the difference?
• "The Royal Yugoslav Army did not field corps..." probably best to link "corps" here
• " Generaloberst Maximilian von Weichs" --> should the rank be in italics here for consistency with the others?
• "Armiski General Leon Rupnik" v. "Armijski đeneral Milorad Petrović" (are these ranks different? If not should they be presented the same way?)
  • Thanks for the review, Rupert! All done, these are my edits

Comment. I read through everything but the Operations section (maybe later). It's a very good article. And it's a good thing somebody fluent in English is reading Terzić and giving us an English synopsis. Below are some suggestions:

• The noun phrase "the German-led Axis invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" has four links in it. Couldn't this be reduced to "Axis invasion of Yugoslavia"? Then change "Third Reich" to "Germany".

• I understand what you're getting at, but I believe the point about it being German-led is critical to a basic idea of the invasion. I've used both "Third Reich" and "Germany" over the years, but I am a bit of a pedant and believe there is nuance in using Third Reich to indicate the incorporated territories, ie Austria and the Sudentenland, Reichsgau Wartheland etc.

• Remove "post-coup" from the lead (leave "the government of Dušan Simović") and mention the coup at the start of the Mobilisation section.
  • Done.
• Is there a reason to prefer "Reich" over "German"? (In the context, the fact that it was Austria prior to 1938 seems irrelevant. It was Germany in 1941.)

• See my earlier comment.

• We have an article on the Rupnik Line, but it is not linked.

• Good point, added.

• It seems odd to use the term Divizijski General in the lead, but leave the explanatory note for it down in the 2nd section. The reader who needs it will probably want it when s/he first reads it in the lead.

• Good point, fixed.

• What is the difference between "consisted of" and "supported by" in the Composition section? (I presume "supported by" are army-level formations.)

• Exactly that.

• "Border guard units" appear suddenly under Deployment plan. Perhaps their status could be explained in the first section, where the fortifications are mentioned?
• The first paragraph of the Mobilisation section seems redundant as it stands. The first two sentences restate what has already been said, and the third just restates the first two. Redundancy per se is fine, but the paragraph doesn't seem to expand on what has already been introduced. Maybe add the subsection "Overall condition of the 7th Army" to the opening paragraph?

• Thanks for raising this, I have added some attribution because there is some nuance between the two sources. I'll think about this further.

I don't generally participate in these things, but since I was planning to read the article right through anyway, I'd though I'd give some feedback. I have no objection to promoting this article in any way, but I am entirely unfamiliar with the actual criteria. —Srnec (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and light c/e. A different perspective is always useful. I'll have a look at them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the Operations section:

• Where it says "Hauptmann Palten led his Kampfgruppe Palten", it would be better "Hauptmann [First Name] Palten led his Kampfgruppe" with an explanatory note saying that Kampfgruppen were usually named after their commanders, so this was Kampfgruppe Palten. I presume that needs a source, but that should be easy to find. Finding Palten's first name might be harder.
  • Sadly, the source doesn't mention the young captain's name.
• The Potez 25s are not mentioned in the Composition section. Were they part of the 6th Air Recon. Group?
  • Almost certainly part of a training unit, the only units equipped with them were the training units, which were dispersed across the country. No doubt there was one at Ljubljana, but none of the sources I have state that with certainty.
• It would be nice if the map in the Deployment plan section could have the line dividing the 7th Army area from the 4th that is found on the gov't map under 10 April.
  • Beyond my map-making skills at this stage, but I am not happy with the maps for this series of articles, and have been trying to find an online training course in Inkscape or similar so I can learn how to create operational-level maps for just this kind of thing.
• Personally, I'd like to see a list of the "22 generals" under 9 April, but I know that's asking a lot.

• I'm not surprised by the number actually, when you include brigadni djenerals (which the Americans generally do), the army group and army headquarters each had six generals each just in the headquarters (commander, deputy commander, artillery, engineer and infantry commander, rear area commander), there was at least one general in each division and detachment headquarters (usually), plus the Zagreb-based rear area command headquarters and commandants of a couple of Zagreb-based training schools. Would be pretty close, even when you take out Nedeljković escaping to lead the fight in Bosnia for a few more days. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the Simović quote, which is short, needs a box.
  • Agree, fixed.
• Under 11 April: Whose radio broadcasts? Enemy? Fifth column?
  • Fifth column, fixed.
• Under 11 April: Generalmajor and maggior generale need to be either linked or explained with a note, like their Yugoslav equivalents.
  • Done.

Overall, it reads quite well, although inevitably it is somewhat hard to follow without a detailed map at hand or good knowledge of the area. There's also a lot about the Germans, but I understand that the "Operations" section of this article functions largely as a sub-article of the invasion of Yugoslavia. —Srnec (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments, Srnec. I hope you do some more reviewing in the future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • This looks very good to me - some minor points / suggestions:
    • Prose is a little repetitive here I think "...the German capture of Maribor on 8 April as the Germans..." (the German(s) x 2 in close proximity)
    • "Yugoslav war plans foresaw the headquarters of the 7th Army and its army-level..." Perhaps wikilink army (in "army-level") here to Field army
    • "... supported by one border artillery battalion fielding three batteries..." perhaps wikilink batteries
    • "... but the poor response to the mobilisation orders for the 44th Infantry Regiment meant..." I wonder if something like this would be more clear: "...but the poor response of personnel of the 44th Infantry Regiment to the mobilisation orders meant..."
    • "...but only 45 to 50 percent of vehicles and animals were available..." Is the reason for this unavailability known?
    • "However, Rupnik and the head of the operations staff of the headquarters of the 1st Army Group, Pukovnik Franjo Nikolić hid the orders from Petrović and did not carry them out." Should there be a paired comma here after Nikolic? Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the suggestions, re: grammar, have fixed all those. As far as the vehicles and animals were concerned, it was a combination of things I believe, fifth column activity, reluctance of people to hand over their oxen etc in an uncertain situation, and unrealistic planning/expectations by the Yugoslav high command. Thanks very much for the review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• and the 4th Army defending the western sector along the Hungarian border. Don't you mean the eastern sector?
• In the composition section, you might remind the reader that the Lika Detachment is infantry; I had to go back to the lede to figure it out.
• A map of all the fortifications would be nice, but not required. Beautiful area, though, at least in the western portion in modern Slovenia.
• and around noon on 6 April arrived in their concentration area at Grosuplje, just south of Ljubljana This seems awkward. I'd suggest moving the arrival to the end of the sentence.
• had to be assembled from Germany Perhaps "gathered" or "transported" rather than "assembled"? Also avoids the echo from assembly area.
• Later that day, German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers of Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 escorted by Messerschmitt Bf 109E fighters caught commas after 77 and fighters
• German soldiers crossing a river using a pneumatic boat Can't say that I've ever heard of a pneumatic boat before, but I've used rubber boats for river crossings. Is this some sort of Commonwealth term?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review Sturm, have addressed all your comments, here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I like this one, and I'm guessing it will do well at FAC. I've copyedited down to Deployment plan and skimmed the rest. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.