Talk:Bijeljina massacre

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Since April 2024, the article has had several "citation needed" notifications in the lead and the body.

It also uses several primary sources from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. A significant part of the article is actually based on these primary sources, which goes against WP:Primary.

The primary source is the best source for its own contents; however, it is evident that undue weight was given to the primary sources. They are used as a source for significant information within the article. They act as a secondary source for the events instead of just being used for what they are—a statement from the ICTY judgement.

Also, per MOS:Lead, the lead section should not contain any citations, which should be reserved for the body of the article. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As to the "lead section should not contain any citations" being an ironclad rule, please see the statements in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in the lead: "A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." And see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations which states in part: "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

I have not thoroughly reviewed the article and am not expressing a view on the merits of the reassessment. I comment only to note that the use or not of citations in the lead is judged on a case by case basis. While perhaps discouraged, citations in the lead are not prohibited and in at least some cases may be needed. Since whether there should be citations in the lead is a judgment call on a case-by-case basis, not an ironclad rule, it should be an editorial matter between interested editors, not a basis for GAR. That being said, thanks for bringing this article up for attention. A quick glance leads me to think that a review and possibly some improvements are needed. Donner60 (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

For clarification @Donner60, do you not object to a delist? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Since I am working on several other GARs and other projects, I do not have time to review this in depth promptly. A quick scan shows there are almost no citation needed tags left in the article and one or two problematic tagged citations are covered by an additional citation. I was looking at articles that I thought I might be able to improve to stay at GA. I saw this "no citations in the lead" comment and knew it was wrong. In fact a citation in the lead often can cover a mention later in the article if the point is mentioned without further elaboration and doesn't end a paragraph. (Any citation problems that still exist need to be fixed, of course.)

The "undue weight" to or overuse of primary sources is a judgment call, depending on the source, whether there may be other sources available for key information and how the primary sources are used and described, and whether any contrary views or explanations are given in reliable secondary sources. So again, this is not necessarily a reason for downgrading. As I noted, it would take me some weeks to get back to this in depth.

So even though I think that neither reason given for the downgrade is a good one in every case, and the first is not a good one in this case, I cannot say definitively that the second one on primary sources is not a good reason for delist in this case. The bottom line, then, is that I cannot in good faith object to a delist (unless I, as time permits, or someone else familiar with the article or subject matter gives it a thorough review and sees reason to object, which I suppose is doubtful). Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)