Talk:Croatian Peasant Party during World War II/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


Happy to review the article.

Criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  


Comments

edit

Lead section

edit
  • The link to armed resistance doesn’t lead where you would expect it to.
I think it simply needs to be clearer at this point in the text that the armed resistance were the Partisans. AM
Reworded - please check again. In the process, I linked Yugoslav Partisans too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  Partly done AM
Yugoslav Partisans have been linked already pe above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

1 Background

edit

2 Invasion of Yugoslavia

edit
Understood, but it's only fair to readers that the links go where they might expect them to, so I would make it clearer in the text that the countries are not the current states. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
This exact same formula is used in the FA. I feel adding "Kingdom" in front of each link will not be helpful at all and will only create clutter. Then again, if you insist...--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, we can leave it be. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • who pulled Yugoslavia out of the Tripartite Pact – consider replacing ‘pulled out’ e.g. with ‘and Yugoslavia withdrew from the Tripartite Pact’ (which is less idiomatic).
  • Amend to include police to ‘to include the police’. (I write in British English, so please ignore this if you don’t.)
  • Link Axis powers in the image caption.
  • Who was Slavko Kvaternik?
    • He was a former Austro-Hungarian Army officer, and obviously was a supporter of Ustaše (later a government minister etc.). He had no formal position at the time of the declaration, so it is hard to pin a specific short label. I added a bit on his being a former army officer, but I'm unsure this helps at all. Any suggestion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
'Slavko Kvaternik, a founding member of Ustaše,'? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Scanned the entire Tomasevich, Calic and The Oxford Handbook of European History and all I could get from them was that he was the most prominent member of the movement and leader of the movement in the country (Yugoslavia or Croatia depending on point of view, but makes no difference for this purpose). The wiki article on him indeed says he was a founding member (and it is quite possible he was one), but offers no sources to back the claim up and Tomasevich does not confirm it. Instead I wrote what he says about Kvaternik - that he was the leader of the Ustaše movement in the country (retaining the potentially ambiguous formulation "the country") and I have expanded the corresponding reference page range to encompass pages 48 and 53 where those claims exist. I'll have a look at other sources too and include the founding info if I find it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, what's there now is fine, anything else would be good too, but it's perhaps not essential to include it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, the text is fine. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

3 Fracturing of the party

edit

4 Scheme to seize power

edit
  • Amend the link to Adriatic coast to only link ‘Adriatic’.
  • Amend Treaties of Rome to ‘1941 Treaties of Rome’.
  • Who was Josip Torbar?
    • At this point, he fairly irrelevant and could be dropped from the article (just a HSS member and a Košutić's associate). On the other hand, he much later became the president of the HSS, so .... I don't know what to do. Suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would drop him, as according to this from the Croatian Wikipedia, it seems that it was his son who became president. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, can't find it. AM
My bad. AM
  Partly done AM
No, I can't see your clarification. AM
Found. AM

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

5 Aftermath

edit
  • Amend of People's Front of Yugoslavia to ‘of the People's Front of Yugoslavia'.
  • Who was Stjepan Pezelj?
  • allowed to operate - ‘allowed to coexist’ sounds better imo.
  • Amend eleven to ‘11’ (as ‘28 ‘ occurs earlier).
  • only six of the eleven - ‘only six of them’.
  • and Šubašić suffered a stroke needs to be preceded by a comma or a colon to help the sentence make better sense.
  • Marija Radić's bookshop was bombed – any more details available (the perpetrators, whether bombed from above or destroyed with explosives inside)?
    • Sorry I missed this one. The source just says "bombed". I assume it was an explosive device and not an aircraft bomb since it was peacetime and the centre of Zagreb, but no info on perpetrators is available (likely nobody investigated given circumstances) and no specific info if the explosion occurred outside or inside or on the exact type of the bomb. Any suggestions how to proceed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Apologies, was looking at a wrong Radelić article. The one referred to inline says an "explosive device or a bomb" exploded in front of the bookshop. An investigation was started but produced no results except that the police interviewed the editor of the newspaper. I edited the passage to reflect the source more closely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

7 References

edit
  • The links to Calic and Vuksic should be removed, as they provide little extra information.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I meant the links to the Google Books, which have no previews. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh, ok - I assumed the url is always included. Removed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

On hold

edit

I'm placing the article on hold until 25 April to allow time for you to address the comments in the review. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for thorough review. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns above. I have requested clarifications on others, so I'll resume take this up again when I get more feedback. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Still some issues to address, thanks for your work so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Did some more work. If I'm not missing anything, I think the description of Kvaternik and Radić bookshop bombing remain to be resolved. Please correct me if I'm overlooking something.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

All good

edit

Passing the article now, great work. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your time taken to reveiw this article. I believe its quality has improved as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply