Talk:Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja was the occupation of the Bačka and Baranja regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by Hungary during World War II.

In the lead, I think you should rather link to the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), rather then to the Hungary in World War II.

• • Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• You linked to the Serbs two times in the lead, there's no need for that. One link is enough.
  • Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Prior to their withdrawal from the Balkans in the face of the advance of the Soviet Red Army, the Germans evacuated 60,000–70,000 Volksdeutsche from Bačka and Baranja to Austria.

You linked the Russian SSR, but noth the Soviet Union, why?

• • Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

--Wüstenfuchs 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is another notable aspect of wartime and post-war changes in the area discussed by the article, albeit not a direct consequence of the Hungarian occupation per se. During World War II and in the period immediately following the war, there were further significant demographic changes as the German speaking population (the Volksdeutsche) were either forced or otherwise compelled to leave—reducing their number from the prewar German population of Yugoslavia of 500,000, living in parts of present-day Croatia and Serbia, to the figure of 62,000 recorded in the 1953 census. The figure pertains to other areas besides Bačka and Baranja (Banat, Slavonia, etc.) but I suspect a mention of that would be beneficial to the article. The source may be: Charles W. Ingrao & Franz A. J. Szabo: The Germans and the East, p.357 ([1]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

addressed, I think. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect Pecs and Zombor are mixed up in the infobox?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• absolutely, doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Aren't the flag, arms, motto, anthem, government type in fact attributes of Hungary and not really specific to the area? While population figure, language information etc. presented in the infobox are really useful, I fear that readers might easily be tricked into thinking that the area had a specific symbols and that those presented in the infobox are those. It is perfectly possible that I'm under a wrong impression here, but perhaps those elements of the infobox need be reconsidered, provided with notes or something entirely different.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean re: the infobox. The purpose of including that information in the infobox is to show what applied in that area during the occupation and annexation, rather than specific symbols for these territories (which were essentially re-incorporated into Hungary). I have added "of Hungary" to the Flag and CoA though. The infobox treatment of annexed territory is consistent with the infobox used for Governorate of Dalmatia (annexed by Italy) for example, although that was a grouping of three new provinces of Italy rather than being incorporated into existing provinces. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really mind having an infobox, that's completely fine by me - but make sure that readers can make no mistake in respect of the flag, i.e. that careful readers are offered information that the territory had no separate flag, but the Hungarian one was used instead. That can be done in an infobox note or in the main text, ditto for other symbols. Of course, this is merely a suggestion - I'd go that way. On a further note, I just noticed you have quite a little edit war going on about the infobox. That in itself is sufficient to fail a GAN, but I trust the primary reviewer will have patience to see it resolved. WP:RFC might be the fastest avenue to do that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with the edit war at ANI, and it's not just about the infobox. I'm sanguine with a fail at GAN at this point, it's obvious there are some opinions that need to be worked through, even about the article title, despite the editors in question having been absent for a month prior to the nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am working on an expanded version which utilises infobox settlement and should be far less controversial. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The 1931 census conveniently groups together Serbs and Croats - I suspect that Hungarians were the most numerous single ethnic group in the area at the time. Since it might significant to context of the events, is there any way to check the specific figures, i.e. individual ethnic groups instead of language-based distinctions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• There really weren't many Croats there. I located a source that breaks them down properly [2], turns out you were right, in the two regions combined, Hungarians were the largest minority (33%), with Hungarians and Germans neck and neck in Baranya. Fortunately the same source provides the breakdowns for the areas proposed to be included in the scope below. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Background

• At the Paris Peace Conference following the conclusion of World War I, the Entente Powers signed the Treaty of Trianon with the restored Kingdom of Hungary.

You should make a link to the Entente Powers.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rest of the text in this section is fine. --Wüstenfuchs 06:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Invasion

The text here is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Geography

The text in this section is also fine. --Wüstenfuchs 06:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Administration

The section is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Districts

This sectio is also fine. --Wüstenfuchs 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Bačka and Baranja

• Only 2 per cent of those sent to the Eastern Front survived the war.

Should be "percent" rather then "per cent"?

per MOS:PERCENT, I write in Australian English, either should be acceptable, OK? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the text is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resistance and repression

Could you move up the black and white image with the Hungarian soldiers?

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The text is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The liberation and aftermath

• Fearing that Hungary might conclude a separate peace with the Allies, Hitler launched Operation Margarethe in March 1944, and ordered German troops to occupy Hungary.

You should make a link to the Operation Margarethe.

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• After the liberation of Yugoslavia, the military and national courts in Bačka prosecuted war criminals and traitors who during the period of occupation killed about 10–20,000 innocent men, women, and children from all parts of Bačka.

Could you rewrite the number to "10,000–20,000"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the text is fine. --Wüstenfuchs 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well-written

✓ Pass

• the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; ✓ Pass
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✓ Pass

Factually accurate and verifiable

✓ Pass

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; ✓ Pass
• it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;✓ Pass
• it contains no original research.✓ Pass

Broad in its coverage

✓ Pass

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ Pass
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.✓ Pass

Neutral

✓ Pass

• it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.✓ Pass

Stable

✓ Pass

• it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✓ Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images

✓ Pass

• images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;✓ Pass
• images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.✓ Pass

Overall

✓ Pass

--Wüstenfuchs 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article was not stable. There was no consensus about its topic and consequently its name. Its title does not correspond to its content. Promoting this article to GA status was mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No doubt I am wasting my energy responding to you (given the fact that we are rarely on the same page on any topic), but this article did not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute, the infobox not being a significant issue, despite some highly disruptive editors' strong views on what should or should not be in it. I would also note that the behaviour of the editor at the centre of the infobox issue was ARBMAC-warned for that behaviour, and was then joined by suspiciously WP:MEAT-like IP's displaying extremely poor wikibehaviour. Wüstenfuchs obviously saw through the poor behaviour and determined that the article was not changing significantly. I note that there were almost no substantive changes to the body of the article during the GAN review period. The discussion about the expansion of the topic and its name on the talk page are yet to be resolved. That does not mean that the article cannot be promoted. BTW, in what way does its title not correspond with its content? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is again unnecessarily harsh, like almost every single of your comments addressed to me. I will save you from wasting your energy. This is my last comment on this article's talkpage. I hope that the topic and title issues will be resolved soon. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)