# Talk:Operation Hurricane-91

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of combining the lot into a single article, developing a separate one for Papuk or maintaining two existing ones for about two weeks before committing my notes into the writing. While it is possible to combine the whole thing, I see no benefit from such a course of action. (1) A possible pitfall from that would be having to describe two parallel actions which have very little to do with each other (other than in the area securing the Požega-Nova Gradiška road and in Kusonje). I fear that the result would be very confusing to casual readers. (2) The Swath/Papuk were fought primarily between ZNG/HV and the TO, while Hurricane hinged on JNA-HV combat rather than TO. (3) The units involved were different, only the 127th Bde having been deployed in Swath/Papuk and (the final few days of) Hurricane (but to virtually no effect). (4) The offensives were not even commanded by the same command structures - Swath/Papuk by Bjelovar operational zone (Col Jezerčić through Col Kovačević and Jezerčić directly), and Hurricane by Posavina operational group (Stipčić). Posavina OG itself was subordinated to Zagreb Operational Zone and therefore had nothing to do with Jezerčić (formally Nova Gradiška sector was subordinated to Osijek OZ (except for the purposes of Op Hurricane). Sources do not provide the slightest indication of coordination between the Swath/Papuk and Hurricane - I assume there must have been some, but there are no sources on them. The existing General Staff directions certainly do not mention any. The lack of coordination is plausible because the sources offered in the Hurricane article explicitly specify that the coordination between units deployed in Hurricane alone was difficult because of poor communication systems and the HV relied heavily on runners to carry information. In short, because of those four reasons, I decided against a single article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Hurricane-91/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Typing General (talk · contribs) 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The review will begin soon.--Typing General (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


### General
There are no duplicate or disambiguation links.


### Background
Passes.


### Order of battle
"In deployed" should be "in deployment," or remove the "in."
"In area of Pakrac" should be "In the area of Pakrac."
There are double commas surrounding the 15th inline citation.
"By addition of three" should be "by the addition of three."
"Under command of Lieutenant Colonel General Nikola Uzelac" should be "under the command of Lieutenant Colonel General Nikola Uzelac."
Amended as suggested.


### Timeline
"Objectives of Operation Hurricane-91" should be "the objectives of Operation Hurricane-91."
"Towards villages of Medari and Gorice" should be "towards the villages of Medari and Goric."
"Captured Popovac Subocki village" should be "captured the village of Popovac Subocki."
"Captured villages of Brezovac and Livađan" should be "captured the villages of Brezovac and Livađan."
The article should describe what AOR stands for.
"And villages of Dobrovac and Kukunjevac" should be "and the villages of Dobrovac and Kukunjevac."
"And villages of Subocka and Gornje Kričke" should be "and the villages of Subocka and Gornje Kričke."
"Capturing villages of Šnjegavić, Sinlije" should be "capturing the villages of Šnjegavić, Sinlije."
"Improved safety of the Nova Gradiška" should be "improved the safety of the Nova Gradiška."
"Nova Gradiška axis of the Operation Hurricane-91" should be shortened to "Nova Gradiška axis of the operation." The name of the operation has already been stated in the previous sentence, so it's not necessary to repeat it.
The comma in "Even though, Croatian President Franjo Tuđman" should be removed.
"Psunj Mountain, in villages of Brusnik and Lipovac" should be "Psunj Mountain, in the villages of Brusnik and Lipovac."
Amended as suggested. AOR is already defined in the "order of battle" section, so "(AOR)" is added there.


### Aftermath
"Sustained loss of 184 dead, 595 wounded" should be "sustained a loss of 184 dead, 595 wounded."
"Suffered loss of 516 killed and 516 wounded" should be "suffered a loss of 516 killed and 516 wounded."
"HV was confronted with shortage of ammunition" should be "HV was confronted with a shortage of ammunition."
"Poor intelligence information" should just be "poor intelligence." Intelligence is defined as information or news, so "intelligence information" is redundant.
"Between villages of Paklenica and Dragalić" should be "between the villages of Paklenica and Dragalić."
"Provided for protection of civilians in specific areas" should be "provided for the protection of civilians in specific areas."
"Parts of municipalities of Novska and Nova Gradiška" should be "parts of the municipalities of Novska and Nova Gradiška."
"As entire municipalities of Daruvar, Grubišno Polje" should be " as the entire municipalities of Daruvar, Grubišno Polje."
Amended as suggested. Wikilinked intelligence piping the term to Military intelligence to be on the safe side.
The problems are minor, and the article just needs a little copy editing. Good work.--Typing General (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for investing time and effort into reviewing this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This article passes as a Good Article.--Typing General (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed there's another article called Mašićka Šagovina killings describing something this article doesn't talk about at all, but uses a Savo Štrbac / Veritas website as its main source. I mention over there at talk that this doesn't seem to be verifiable with the Serbian National Council website or indeed much at all. @Tomobe03 is that information reliable? --Joy (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the killings article and the Veritas source. I tried to look up info on this and found nothing. I assume there would be some coverage in the past three decades, a UN peacekeepers report since they were there etc. It appears unlikely that there'd be so little coverage about an event of that magnitude especially with the peacekeepers at the scene hours or a couple of days later and ICTY investigators in the general area on several occasions.
Furthermore, the killings article notes in the infobox 55 dead in the mass killing. If one were to take the Veritas source at face value, it does note 55 dead (some military, some civilians) but it is unclear from the text when were those 55 killed or if they were killed in fighting (either as combatants or as collateral victims etc.). The article specifically names ten people for whom it specifically says they were killed after Croatian troops captured the village (some others named but it is said they were found dead/killed by Croatian forces without specifying when, i.e. during the fighting or after the fighting, or how they died) which seems to be against verifiability policy even if the source were reliable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Croatian National Guard.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)