# Talk:Omarska camp

This review is transcluded from Talk:Omarska camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
prose:   (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1. and send them in the camps. Suggest - and send them to the camps
2. held on the area. Suggest - held in the area
3. The corpses of the inmates were spotted in front of the White House and the camp's guards continued to shooting rounds into them. Everyone was given an extra bullet that was shot in their heads. Suggest - The corpses of the inmates were spotted in front of the White House and the camp's guards continued to shoot rounds into them.  

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you've left (3) unchanged I assume that you spotted that the text in italics was a quote from the evidence cited in the Stakic Judgement.  I've added quotation marks to make it clearer to other readers. I've also revised the surrounding text that seems to have been taken from the Judgment but not verbatim to bring it a bit closer to current English.Opbeith (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

...but the authorities of Republika Srpska deny the authorization for the construction. Maybe this info should be put in the article…--201.81.224.11 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of progress re memorial and ArcelorMittal blaming RS authorities now incorporated.  Separately, the awkwardly phrased assertion by Nick Hawton in the existing paragraph that "many Bosniaks believe that construction should be postponed until all the victims are found and only if the entire mine – which is in use – be allocated for the memorial site." seems questionable.  Survivors have called for an investigation to locate unexhumed mass graves on the site but it's not clear that this is seen as excluding progress on the construction of a memorial and the alleged insistence that the whole mine should be made into a memorial site seems questionable as Bosniak returnees to the area want the mine working and providing employment, currently denied them by the discriminatory employment practices of ArcelorMittal's local management (contrary to the provisions of the Dayton Agreement).Opbeith (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This article was promoted over 12 years ago, and is now far short of the criteria for a GA. Some of the material remains cited to the same sources from 2012, but the material has been changed significantly, and is no longer fully supported by the sources. I will conduct a GAR shortly detailing the areas where it is deficient. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)