# Talk:Pećanac Chetniks

The article should probably be moved to "Pećanac Chetniks". Its a far less clumsy name and I'd beta a lot more common. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article should probably be referenced in the lede of the Chetniks article to make it clear there were two Chetnik organisations. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just merge it into the main article? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer that. To me, the Chetniks article should cover all aspects of the Chetnik movement (which is why I consider the 'Yugoslav Army of the Fatherland' should be removed from the first line), and despite the minor role Pecanac played, he is part of the rich tapestry of the pre-war Chetnik movement, and it needs to be made clear that the movement formed by Mihailovic was not an expansion of the formal pre-war Chetnik movement, but a new branch of Chetnik development drawing on general Chetnik traditions. Several sources are available for that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pećanac Chetniks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written 
a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The overall article is well-written. Here is a list of minor sentence or grammar errors I found.
1. "They were loyal to the German-backed Serbian puppet government and fought against Yugoslav Partisans and the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović" - I noticed the infobox mentioned it operated between 1941-43, so might consider mentioning that in the lead.
2. "a notorious organisation that arbitrarily terrorised Bulgarians in the Štip region" - To avoid confusion consider mention where the "Štip region" was and which part it is of today. For example, you could change the sentence to "a notorious organisation that arbitrarily terrorised Bulgarians in the Štip region, located in what today is Macedonia".
3. By simply naming the second section "Collaboration" the reader might wonder with whom he collaborated with. Considered changing it to "Nazi collaboration" or something that associates it with the occupying force.
4. "in which he portrayed himself as the defender and protector of Serbs and called "on detachments that have been formed without his approval" - The quote should not begin at "on" but at "detachments".
5. "broke ranks to join with the Partisans" - It appears the word "with" should not be included.
6. "Pećanac sent a request to the head of the Serbian puppet government, Milan Nedić for stronger organization, supplies, arms, salary funds, and more" - This overall sentence is fine, but the "for stronger organization" part might cause confusion. Was he requesting help to strengthen his organization or did he need some kind of written permission? The other objects mentioned in his list is things he needed from the government, so the requesting-help-to-strengthen-organization version could be the understanding. If this is supposed to be the understainding, consider tweaking this so it's clarified.
7. "General der Artillerie (General) Paul Bader" - The paragraph text should be changed to "General of Artillery" as that's the proper translation of General der Artillerie.
8. "Paul Bader issued orders giving unit numbers C–39 to C–101 to the Pećanac Chetnik detachments" - This is just a suggestion, but I would suggest adding the word "the" in between "giving" and "unit" just for clarity.
9. "These orders also required the deployment of a German liaison officer with all detachments engaged in operations, and limited their movement outside their assigned area" - By choosing the word "and" instead of "which might cause confusion.
10. "The Germans soon found that Pećanac's units were inefficient, unreliable, and of little military aid to them" - This sentence indicates that the Germans indeed "soon found that Pećanac's units were inefficient, unreliable, and of little military aid to them", but the article has previously mentioned that they were in service between 1941-43. That's almost three years (article does not mention the specific month of 1941 the Chetniks started their collaboration with the Germans) which does not really indicate they "soon" discovered they were inefficient soldiers. If it's because the Germans only had one liaison officer placed with the Chhetniks, consider adding that in. Otherwise, I would remove that "soon" addition.
11. "The Germans and the puppet government commenced disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one was dissolved by the end of 1942" - Like point 8, this is just a suggestion, but I would recommend replacing "and" with "yet" in between "1942" and "all".
12. "His followers were dispersed to other German auxiliary forces, German labour units, and prisoner-of-war camps" - Were they acting as guards at the POW camps or were they actual prisoners. It seems weird the Germans would place a part of the remnants to other guard units and also place some in POW camps. Consider adding a word or two about the POW-sentence so as to avoid confusion.
Addressed all these points, these are my edits. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Verifiable with no original research 
a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
c. It contains no original research

The sources used in this article is very acceptable and all have ISBN numbers and other text-requirements. Some of the authors are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia even. Nice job on the Harvard references too.
Broad in its coverage 
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

I'm very satisfied with this articles coverage. It covers background, formation, activity, Axis collaboration, and dissolution.
Neutral 
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral with no personal or individual mentions and have had no discussions or disputes regarding the policy on neutrality.
Stable 
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
The article does not significantly change from day to day (edits or major expansions and improvements made in the face of the GA-nomination will be ignored).

Illustrated 
a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article contains two images (one in lead and one in the "Collaboration" section). For the length of the article, it seems just fine. Both images are public domains and are uploaded and from Commons.
Pass, fail, or hold? 
With the article meeting the GA-requirement, and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor issues or suggestions, I'm going to pass it. Excellent job. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review. I will address those comments later today. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
All done, thanks again. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does not clearly present the time period of existence of Black Chetniks collaborationist forces. The infobox shows only years. Here is what the text of the article says about it:

The first sentence defines Pećanac Chetniks as:
The Pećanac Chetniks, also known as the Black Chetniks, were a collaborationist Chetnik irregular military force which operated in the German-occupied territory of Serbia under the leadership of vojvoda (war lord) Kosta Pećanac.
The infobox presents only Allegiance to Nazi Germany and its puppet govt in Serbia
The main body of the article presents important information about period April-August 1941:
Shortly before the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy requested that Pećanac prepare for guerrilla operations and guard the southern area of Serbia, Macedonia, and Kosovo from pro-Bulgarians and pro-Albanians in the region. He was given arms and money, and managed to arm several hundred men in the Toplica River valley in southern Serbia.
Based on cited assertions presented in the article and based on common sense it can be concluded that the collaborationist Black Chetniks existed since August 1941 so I added diff more precise dates of existence of this unit to infobox (August 1941– March 43). My edit was reverted (diff) by Peacemaker67 with explanation "This group existed from the time of the invasion". 
There are two possible positions:

if the Black Chetniks existed since April 1941 the first sentence and infobox are incorrect and article does not meet WP:NPOV and WP:GAC because in the first four months of its existence (April-August 1941) this unit was not collaborationist but operated as guerilla force against the order of the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy to fight against Axis and pro-Axis forces, which he did when he fought against Albanian bands in early summer 1941.
if the Black Chetniks existed since August 1941 then my addition of precise period of existence was justified.
Peacemaker67, are you sure that you still support position that existed from the time of the invasion?

If yes, please correct the text of the first sentence and infobox details to present first four months of non-collaborationst period of existence
If not, please revert your last removal
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As I've told you many times, I won't be dictated to by you. If you think changes should be made, make them yourself and we will work it out based on the reliable sources. If you read the requirements of MOS:LEADSENTENCE you would know that the first sentence tells the non-specialist reader what the subject is and establishes notability, ie what the subject is known for. This organisation is known for being a collaborationist force, not for a few months when it did nothing except fight Albanians. The first sentence is completely within policy, as is the infobox, which shows the allegiance the organisation had for almost the whole of its existence. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)