Talk:1964 Zagreb flood

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Daß Wölf in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
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 Theleekycauldron (talk19:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Reviewed: Younousse Sèye & Chestnut-capped piha
  • Comment: I created the Pero Pirker article in my userspace in March[1] and merged it into the mainspace version earlier this week. Please also credit Tomobe03 for helping out with the Pero Pirker article.

5x expanded by Daß Wölf (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC).Reply

  • Comment: Articles have indeed undergone an 8.6x and 77.1x (no, that's not a typo) expansions, respectively. I'm not going to do a full review, just leaving a comment to say that and to add that while Tomobe03 made very useful aesthetic edits to both articles, their impact on the expansion was rather limited and a DYK credit to them doesn't seem to be in order to me. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 05:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  •   Both articles were expanded enough. I used an online translator to help me verify the facts in non-English sources, but I do know that isn't always the greatest so I assume good faith. I also assume good faith on the print sources. Both articles are neutral. There are a few issues. For the first hook, the Pero Pirker article calls the work a biography instead of an essay. The other two hooks are fine and are directly cited. OpenStreetMap in the Pero Pirker article shouldn't be used to cite anything due to it being editable by anyone. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @SL93: Thanks for the review, and for taking time and effort to translate the sources, I can imagine that must've been onerous! I've replaced the references to OpenStreetMap with secondary sources and struck out "essay" in ALT0. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Daß Wölf 16:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • P.S. Feel free to reword ALT½. Putting "biography" there without Pirker's name directly attached feels odd, but I haven't been able to find a better way to word it without making it too long. Perhaps "text" would be better...? Daß Wölf 16:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
ALT1 to T:DYK/P4

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1964 Zagreb flood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Overview

edit

I'll take this on as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Comments to follow later today. Mujinga (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Copyvio check

edit
  • Earwig throws up nothing to worry about

Infobox

edit

Pictures

edit
  • all licenses good and the pix generally illustrate the article really well
  • Foto with caption "River Sava in Trnje. The shorter blue building in front is the Kockica, while the reddish-brown Vjesnik Building can be partly seen at the right edge of the photo" - Kockica isn't mentioned in the article, if this is the same Vjesnik building (small b) would it be better for the image to be in the section talking about Vjesnik the newspaper?
    • Yes, it's the same building. I've moved it and removed the Kockica text. I only added that because I wanted to link an existing building article (Kockica was under construction in 1964 and the IIRC the foundations had to be redone because of the flood, but I think it would be too much to shoehorn that in the article anyway). However, that left the Background section without a picture, and there don't seem to be many good pictures of Sava I could replace it with, so I've added a photo of Cvjetno naselje under Suburban expansion, since this neighbourhood was built in the timeframe referenced and remains pretty much unchanged. Thoughts? Daß Wölf 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Foto with caption "Boats were the only viable means of transport for days in much of the flooded area." - wpuld this not be better beside the text talking about people using boats?
  • Per MOS:ALT, pix shoudl have alt texts

Lead

edit

Geography and hydrology

edit
  • "was described as" - described by who?
    • The article doesn't credit anyone by name, but I presumed it was a RS because the website is ran by the University of Zagreb and its editors are two of its professors. Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "The latter part only sustains" suggest take out only
  • "Floods of Sava in Zagreb have been recorded since the antiquity. " suggest "Floods of the Sava in Zagreb have been recorded since antiquity" and moving paragpraph up to include previous three sentences as well
  • "The first floods attested in modern records date back to 14th century.[13] The first chronicled flood occurred in 1469" suggest something like "The first floods recorded in modern times date back to 14th century, with the first being in 1469"
    • The 1469 flood (in the 15th century ;-) ) is the first one for which the year of occurrence is known. The floods from 14th century apparently cannot be traced to a specific year (IIRC one source mentioned that a certain parish church was moved in the 14th century "due to the floods").
  • "Zagreb's twin cities" can that be explained?
    • I've rewritten this part, hopefully that makes it clearer. Kaptol and Gradec were two fortified towns that exercised political control over the region during the Middle Ages. I originally tried to stress that Donji grad, Kaptol and Gradec are all directly adjacent, on the fault line where the plain and the hills meet, but it may have come a little awkward. Please let me know if you have any ideas how to make this all sound like less of a mouthful. Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • " owned possessions in" do you mean they owned land?
    • Checking the source, it seems Kaptol would've owned the land directly, since the town itself belonged to the Catholic Church, but in the case of Gradec it's not clear if it was some kind of common land or if it was owned by particular citizens. I've changed it to a less specific phrasing, since in any case it was within the towns' administrative boundaries. Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "The city was slow to expand as even the Donji grad area, which lies on the northern edge of the plain, right below Kaptol and Gradec, was prone to flooding until it was artificially raised around the turn of the 20th century" suggest "The city was slow to expand since even the Donji grad area, which lies on the northern edge of the plain, was prone to flooding until it was artificially raised around the beginning of the 20th century"

Suburban expansion into the floodplain

edit

Flooding

edit
  • "Sava's upper course" - the Sava's upper course?
  • i can't check the source right now, so can i check if Vadlja 1965, p. 27. covers all info up to that point?
    • Do you mean the ref after "... in the 1933 flood,"? Yes, it's meant to cover the sentences before it as well. I've added the ref at the end of the preceding sentence; I didn't know refs should be repeated in these cases. Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

25 October

edit

26 October

edit
  • oh gosh the account is getting scary! glad i don't live near a river
    • Yeah, finding out how wide the flooded area was was pretty disturbing, considering that in summer the river often looks like you could just wade through it.
  • "The last remaining passable arterial road in Trešnjevka was part of Samobor Road, an east-west road along the railway" reads a bit clunky with three "road"s can you rephrase?

27–28 October

edit

Extent of the flood in Zagreb

edit
  • ok

Outside Zagreb

edit
  • ok

Preparations and impact

edit

Damages and casualties

edit

Rescue and relief efforts

edit

Effects on the city

edit
  • "A few of the houses were reportedly" suggest "A few houses were reportedly" and can you say where?
  • "Most remained standing but many" suggest "Most remained standing but others"
    • This refers to houses that remained standing, but were still condemned. I'm not sure if it's because they were low quality and thought cheaper to rebuild, or if repair really was impossible, perhaps because the construction materials (mostly wood in these neighbourhoods) began to rot. I've edited the text to make this clearer. Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • " the building of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences," of what university?

Improvements to flood defences

edit

Legacy

edit
  • "The flood and recovery therefrom" suggest deleting therefrom
  • "following the suppression of the Croatian Spring in 1971 and his death from cancer the next year" suggest "following the suppression of the Croatian Spring in 1971; he died the next year"
    • The fall into oblivion came later, his funeral was attended by masses protesting against the suppression. The source alleges that he was forgotten because he died young (unlike other Croatian Spring leaders who would become relevant again after Croatia gained independence). Daß Wölf 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • ok ... so on "fell into oblivion following the suppression of the Croatian Spring in 1971 and his death from cancer the next year" then i read it as he fell into oblivion after the Croatian Spring AND after his death, but you are saying his oblivion came later so I still want you to rephrase to reflect that if possible Mujinga (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • Hmm, maybe I phrased this badly. He did fall into oblivion after his death, presumably not quite right after, but going off the source there doesn't seem to have been a third event that would've caused it. I originally read your sentence as saying that the sentence reads as if he fell into oblivion right after he left politics and died forgotten; hence my writing "later". The source goes on to say that his work was ignored until and after the fall of Communism for (different) political reasons, I could add that but I thought that might be going into too far off topic. Daß Wölf 15:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See also

edit
  • ok

Notes

edit
  • ok

References

edit
edit
  • I'm afraid you'll need to delete "The Flood (1964) by Bogdan Žižić on YouTube (in Croatian)" unless you can show it is published by the copyright holder
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.