Select Page

Talk:Miroslav Kvočka

Good articleMiroslav Kvočka has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 13, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Miroslav Kvočka was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity against non-Serb detainees in the Omarska concentration camp during the Bosnian War?

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 04:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kvočka at the ICTY
Kvočka at the ICTY
  • Source: Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka, Milojica Kos, Mlađo Radić, Zoran Žigić and Dragoljub Prcać, 2 November 2001, p. 205 accessible via [1]
Improved to Good Article status by Peacemaker67 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 28 past nominations.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Incomplete sentence

The sentence "A 2023 study of the lives of war criminals from the 1990s Balkan conflicts who had been released having served their sentences located Kvočka." has no main verb in it. My impression is thet it is intended to describe the source for the information in either the previous sentence or the subsequent one. If that is the case, it should be combined with the relevant sentence using a phrase like "according to". Pauldebarros (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is grammatically correct, although it may be a bit overwhelming structurally. The main verb is 'located'.
'A 2023 study [of [the lives [of [war criminals from the 1990s Balkan conflicts [who had been released [having served their sentences]]]]]] located Kvočka.'--62.73.72.3 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is BLP compliance not a condition for GA?

WP:BLPPRIMARY states: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

28/35 references in this article are to the trial itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am aware of that now, see my comment at BLP noticeboard. I will obviously rectify, there are plenty of secondary sources for almost everything in the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]