Talk:Janko Drašković/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I am planning to complete the review of this nice article in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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 (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A statement in a note contains the editor's conclusion about modern Hungarian scholars' PoV.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   An average reader cannot understand the multiple proposals and debates regarding the status of Croatia, Dalmatia, Rijeka without a short summary about the status quo.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article uses a PoV term to describe the relationship between Croatia and Hungary.

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The first three pictures needed a US PD tag.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

First thoughts

• Consider introducing the Drašković family, and also their estates in different realms of the Lands of St Stephen because an average reader has no information about this family.
• Consider providing a background for the political situation in Croatia around the time Drašković was born and was growing up because an average reader had no knowledge of Central European history. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for picking up this GAN. You've certainly raised good points above. I'll include a couple of sentences on each wikilinking appropriate articles for more detailed info before the end of this review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I will continue the review as soon as you completed its expansion. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh, I misunderstood that... No problem, I hope to add the material later today.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Both added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I suggest you request a copy edit at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Please ping me when the copyedit is done. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Borsoka actually, GOCE (Baffle gab1978) has already copyedited the article on 16-17 February. Should I request another copyedit anyway?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the new text should be copyedited. Borsoka (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The copyedit was completed by me although I asked Tomobe to look it over. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • • Borsoka, the requested copyedit is done - Buidhe was kind to pitch in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I can complete the review in two days. Borsoka (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Family, education and military career

• ...in Zagreb, Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia on 20 October 1770 I would rephrase. Perhaps, "...in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia—an autonomous kingdom in the Habsburg Empire—on 20 October 1770."
  • Reworded similarly, except I did not note Zagreb as the capital (Varaždin was the capital at the time) (T)
• Do we know what was the degree of relationship between his parents?
  • That came across wrong. His mother's maiden surname was Malatinski. Interestingly, Ivan VIII's mother was Suzana Malatinski, but the sources I found do not elaborate on relationship (if any) between Suzana and Eleonora. Švab notes that Suzana was an Slovakian and nothing else on her. (T)
• Introduce his parents with two or three words.
  • There is very little beyond her name offered by the sources on his mother. Švab offers some information on Ivan VIII's brothers (Franjo I (1780-1817) lieutenant colonel and imperial and royal chamberlain; Josip II (?-died after 1802) colonel, comes of the Baranya County), but only specifies that Ivan had the rank of a colonel, nothing else. (T)
• I would introduce his family before mentioning his tutoring, and describe his tutoring and early career in a second paragraph.
  • Moved the relevant paragraph (T)
• ...Csíkszereda in Siebenbürgen, Transylvania... I would rephrase it, and would change the link to Transylvania: "...Csíkszereda in Transylvania (another realm within the Habsburg Empire)."
  • Done (T)
• Delink Vienna, and introduce it as the Habsburgs' capital.
  • Done (T)
• I would not link Habsburg military to Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) because misleading (the Lands of St Stephen's Crown, Galicia, Dalmatia and Bukovina were not part of the Holy Roman Empire).
  • Moved link to Austrian Army during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (T)
• ... serving in Nagyvárad and Galicia... I would rephrase it. Perhaps "...serving in two Habsburg kingdoms, Hungary and Galicia..."
  • Edited to the same effect (T)
• ...to develop a career that resembled his father's Perhaps, "...following his father's footsteps who [*]..." (The article does not refer to his father's career).
  • Edited to correct this (T)
• ...in 1802, 1805, and 1809–1811, in the Dalmatian theatre of the War of the Third Coalition... The War of the Third Coalition was fought in 1805 and 1806.
  • moved info to correct position in the inline list (T)
• Could you introduce his wives?
  • I trust that it is important to note that his wives belonged to nobility, but I'm afraid that adding a lot of information on them would digress too much. For now I redlinked House of Pogledić and provided an inter-language link for the House of Kulmer. I'd rather create a couple of simple articles noting the families (and the two wives) there than expand that aspect in this article if that is alright. (T)
• Why did he sell his estates?
  • The sources do not say. They say that he took some loans too, so I imagine he needed the money to repay the loans or that may be unrelated and the money was needed to pay for something else - he supported some publications and institutions, but the source does not link these things explicitly (T)
• Mention that Andrew II also ruled Croatia.
  • Removed reference to Andrew II altogether - not really important in this context; it is noted that the person at hand took part in the Fifth Crusade. (T)
• Mention that the family held lands in Lika before informing us that they were lost.
  • Done (T)
• Link bishop and cardinal.
  • Linked (T)
• Explain the title ban (perhaps, royal governor)
  • I didn't think that's really necessary since the title is wikilinked to its article where the meanings of the title (over ten centuries) are supposed to be explained. Added. (T)
• I made some changes. Please feel free to revert them.
  • They appear fine to me. (T)
• Why is Ptuj Castle mentioned? Based on the linked article, I understand the Draskovici had lost it before Janko was born.
  • It is mentioned as a part of the edit addressing the complaint that the family should be introduced a bit more. I have changed "acquired" to "briefly owned" to indicate that they held onto the castle only temporarily. (T)
• The article now mentions that the Draskovici were elevated to the rank of baron, but his father is mentioned as a count. Borsoka (talk)
  • Yes. Ivan III was made count in 1631. Edited (T)

Political career until 1830

• ...participating in the Croatian Sabor (parliament) for the first time In what capacity?
  • Edited to clarify (T)
    • Was he an elected member of the Sabor, or were all counts member of the Sabor?
• The Sabor decided in May 1790 Croatia's interests would be better protected against the potential return of absolutist monarchs like the recently deceased Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor and the threat of Germanisation by having a joint government with the Kingdom of Hungary. I would divide the large sentence into two or three sentences. The first sentence could mention Joseph II, his absolutism and his attempts to replace Latin with German as the official language in Croatia and Hungary, and his death. The second sentence could mention the Sabor's decision. I do not understand what a "joint government" means in the article's context.
  • Added details to clarify. I did not spell out the intention to replace Latin with German explicitly because the source does not say so explicitly. I does say "Germanisation" and this likely implies use of German in official role, but I have no source confirming this. I'm not entirely certain regarding the English translation of "Helytartótanács", so maybe you could confirm or correct this. (T)
    • Created a stub about the Council and linked it.
• ...and the kings of Hungary were simultaneously kings of Croatia Delete (since this is what a personal union means). Mention that the Sabor sent delegates to attend the Hungarian Diet to explain his role as a delegate.
  • Done (T)
• ...transform the personal union... I would leave the reference to the personal union because it represents a PoV, and I am not sure that all scholars describe the relationship between Croatia and Hungary as such (for instance, the delegates elected by the Sabor regularly attended the Hungarian Diet, and appeals from the Croatian courts were heared at the supreme court of Hungary).
  • I'm certain that at least some scholars view the relationship differnetly, and I am aware that some scholars deny any autonomy of Croatia in the Lands of the Crown of St Stephen, but the personal union appears to be the prevailing view in modern reliable English language sources and I'm not inclined to see statement that the personal union was established as a PoV. What exactly is meant by the personal union and the level of integration was certainly evolving over eight centuries. Per summary style, all this should be dealt with in the article on the personal union, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia etc., but not here. That being said, I changed the above to avoid repetition of the term in the same sentence. (T)
    • As far as I know there are no scholars who deny the autonomy of Croatia but the term "personal union" is a PoV, so it would be avoided. What about something like "...but the relationship between the two kingdoms had been close since the middle ages, as both were Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen."?
      • Since there are multiple sources explicitly stating that the two lands were in a personal union (regarless of what it meant at given times), e.g. Nathalie Kalnoky in The Szekler Nation and Medieval Hungary [1] , Alex Bellamy in The Formation of Croatian National Identity [2] , and A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe by Balázs Trencsényi, Maciej Janowski, Monika Baár, Maria Falina, Michal Kopeček [3] I do not see any POV there. On the other hand, this issue you raised reads a bit like WP:IDL. Again, I'm aware the view that this is POV exists in some (mostly) Hungarian sources, but it seems to be fringe view.(T)

• • • • Let's see what specialised sources say about the relationship between the two countries in the period:
      • (1) Maria Theresa's "absolutist tendencies were less pleasing to the Sabor. In 1767 these found expression in the decision to set up ... a Croatian Royal Council...[which] took away more of the Sabor's competencies. That development was bad enough, but in 1779 the Council was incorporated into the Royal Hungarian Chancellery. There was little that the Sabor could do to stop its functions from wasting away." (Tanner, Marcus (2010) [1997]. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (Third ed.). Yale University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-300-16394-0.)
      • (2) "the Croatian Royal Council was abolished in 1779, and Croatia was subjected to the royal Hungarian chancellery, as the result of which the Hungarians began to consider Croatia a "subject" and not an "allied" kingdom." (Goldstein, Ivo (2007) [1999]. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. McGill–Queen's University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-7735-2017-2.)
      • (3) "The Hungarian parliament, with Croatia's participation, accepted the Pragmatic Sanction and with it the lasting unity of Hungary with Austria-but in a form that asserted also the lasting unity of the lands of the Hungarian crown. The reason for Croatia's acquiescence to this affirmation of the permanence of its union with Hungary becomes clear when one considers the terms of the Hungarian version of the Pragmatic Sanction. These obliged the monarch ... to reintegrate the liberated lands into the respective kingdoms. ... The change occurred ... at the level of the central state organs, whose growing importance weakened the prerogatives of the ban and the sabor in matter of internal administration, including the dispensation of justice and collection of taxes, in favor of central bodies concerned with the lands of the Hungarian crown." (Magaš, Branka (2007). Croatia through History: The Making of a European State. SAQI. p. 188-189. ISBN 978-0-86356-775-9.)
      • None of the specialised sources uses the term "personal union", but one of them refers to the "union". The sources also make it clear that there were central governmental bodies with responsability for both Croatia and Hungary proper. This relationship could hardly be described as a pure "personal union". (Just a side remark, neither the relationship between Hungary and other lands of the Habsburg Empire can be described as a personal union for the same reasons.) I suggest the term "personal union" should be avoided, and the situation should shortly be explained in the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The source you offered above (Goldstein) explicitly says "Hungarians began to consider Croatia a "subject" and not an "allied" kingdom." - this means nobody except Hungarians thought otherwise, i.e. what you're saying appears, according to the source you just offered, POV. I'm surprised you are unable to see this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you refer to reliable sources saying that "allied" means "in personal union"? Please also take into account that Croatia's "union" with Hungary is explicitly mentioned without any adjective by Magaš. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This reads a bit like grasping at straws. You have asked and were givne multiple sources that refer to the relationship as a personal union. It appears you are unable to assess an article related to Hungarian history without pushing what appears (and you offered a source above confirming the same) a certain POV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I quoted specialised and neutral sources. None of them describe the relationship as a personal union in the period. Would you change the term or do you insist on using it? Borsoka (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, I give you a source that explicitly says "eight centuries of personal union" existed between Hungary and Croatia i.e. leaving no period of rule by Arpad, Anjou, or any other subsequent house until and including the Habsburgs not covered by the term here [4]. The article abstract says "The objective of the study is to present the main features of Hungarian-Croatian political relations and cross-border co-operations with a focus on the past 25 years. The study will discuss the various eras and specifics of Hungarian-Croatian political relations, the features of the borderland and cross-border relations, the spatial structural and infrastructural bases of the co-operation and the hard and soft factors of relations. The maintenance of the historically rooted relations -- eight centuries of personal union, a rare example of a millennium of peaceful coexistence in Central Eastern Europe is more or less visible." For avoidance of doubt (for the benefit of non-Hungarian and non-Croatian readers at one point) the source is an article authored by Szilárd Rácz of Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, i.e. a Hungarian source.

Such numerous sources are very easy to find and it is worrying that a reviewer is insisting on pushing POV regardless of ample sources refuting the POV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggested that you should summarize the facts about the relationship between Croatia and Hungary in the article's context instead of using an unclear and potentially misleading term ("personal union") . Why do you think the presentation of facts instead of the use of a PoV term could be described as PoV pushing? Nevertheless, I stop reviewing the article because I think you would not accept my rejection for its lack of neutrality. Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In case you do not see the problem, and for the sake of future 2nd opinion/2nd review providers: Reliable sources (asked for and provided) explicitly refer to the relationship as a "personal union" and it is only possible to refer to the it here using the same term. It is debatable what the term meant at various times, but not here. If you want to discuss what is meant in different periods by "personal union", you should do that at Croatia in personal union with Hungary as advised by WP:SUMMARY guideline. For example, a mention of the Kingdom of Hungary in the context of 1930s in an article not specifically dealing with the Hungarian monarchy itself can do without a section discussing how the throne was vacant, who actually ruled it, how and why. There's Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) article for that and omitting this discussion from, for example, the Hungarian pengő article does not make the Hungarian pengő non neutral.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, there are specialised sources that do not use the term, instead write of "union" without any adjective. As Drašković did not live for nearly a thousand years, our readers should not be forced to read a long article about the changes in the realtionship between the two countries from 1102 to 1918. They should be briefly informed about the situation during his lifetime to understand the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit tho the article here [5] adding note that "Quotes from reliable sources in the GA review indicate that in addition to be ruled by the same king, Croatia and Hungary shared governmental bodies as well, such as the Royal Hungarian Chancellery." is textbook WP:SYNTH where you conclude "shared chancellery means abolished personal union" offering zero sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it is a summary of the above quotes. None of them write of "personal union" but one of them explicitly uses the term "union". Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's literally what WP:SYNTH prohibits.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read [[WP:SYNTH}} more carefully. Again, at least one of the referred sources uses the term "union" without adjective.

Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You have a source saying it "was a union" and inferred it means that the "personal union was abolished". Can you find reliable sources saying that the "personal union was abolished" explicitly like the one I provided saying explicitly it existed unbroken for eight centuries?

I do not dispute that the term "personal union" meant different things at different times. I dispute that the article is POV-pushing if it says "personal union" existed and it is clearly and explicitly backed by sources that say "personal union" in fact existed. If you worry that the casual readers will have a wrong idea what the "personal union" was, don't - there's an entire linked wiki article under the very same title where willing contributors can explain minutia of the offending term ad nauseam. Therefore, there it is unjustified to insist the same substance be added in this article as an off-topic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should leave the 2nd reviewer decide on this issue. So, I stop commenting it. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Drašković was elected as a delegate to the Hungarian Die t. Perhaps "was again elected".
  • Done (T)
• Croatian delegates spoke of a Hungarian attack against Croatian rights, particularly the Diet's 1827 decision to introduce the Hungarian language as a mandatory part of the school curriculum in Croatia in 1833 as the first step of the introduction of Hungarian as the official language in Croatia. The large sentence should be spolitted. A first sentence could mention that the Hungarian Diet wanted to replace Latin with Hungarian as the official language, and then the protest by the Croatian delegates could be mentioned
  • Done (T)
• In response to the policies aimed at centralisation and Magyarisation, ... By whom? Furthermore, in a previous sentence we are informed that the Sabor strived for centralisation. Some explanation is needed.
  • The magyarisation is attributed to the Hungarian nobility in the preceding paragraph. I have specified what is meant by the centralisation in this context by adding a wikilinked reference to the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (T)
• The conflict was framed as the struggle to preserve limited political rights—largely municipal rights—against Austrian and especially Hungarian efforts to curb or abolish them and gave rise to the concept of the Croatian state right. I am not sure I understand the sentence. Furthermore, in this period, the Hungarian Diet tried to defend the autonomy of the counties against Habsburg centralisation.
  • It means that the conflict was portrayed by the proponents of the Croatian national movement as the struggle of a group aiming to curb Croatian municipal rights and a group defending the same rights. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify. (T)

I will continue the review tommorrow. Borsoka (talk)

@Borsoka: are you going to be able to complete this review? RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am waiting for replies. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging both Borsoka and Tomobe03, to see whether the former is satisfied with the replies and is planning further review, and whether the latter is planning further replies. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, all issues raised by the reviewer above have been addressed/replied to. CheersTomobe03 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka could you please list here the specific items you think are still awaiting replies? RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. The main issue is the use of the term "personal union" when describing the relationship between Croatia and Hungary in the period. I think it should be avoided because it is a possibly misleading PoV term. Instead of using it, the principal features of the relationship should be briefly mentioned: The Croatian Sabor (parliament) sent delegates to the Hungarian Diet (parliament), and Croatia was administered through the Hungarian Royal Chancellery. (During Draskovic's political career, the Croatians wanted to reinforce Croatia' autonomy, whereas the Hungarians tried to strengthen the union between the two realms within the Habsburg Empire.) My arguments can be read above. There is a further (minor) issue: I do not understand in what capacity was Draskovic member of the Sabor (as a delegate or as a titled nobleman). Furthermore, I have not reviewed subsections 1.3 and 1.4, and sections 2-6. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer has asked for a source stating that the "personal union" existed and was provided one. In a glaring display of POV pushing, the reviewer dismissed the source for being too wide ranging (as it explicitly stated the personal union existed for eight centuries, i.e. spanning the period from 1102 until dissolution of Austria-Hungary). When asked to provide a reliable source to the contrary (i.e. that the personal union was abolished), the reviewer provided their own synthesis stating a source referring to the relationship between two Habsburg crown lands as being in "a union" (without any adjective) must mean anything other than personal union. When challenged (after all, there must be a source explicitly backing up any claim), the reviewer ignored the fact that they offer zero sources for the extraordinary claim. Thereby the reviewer blatantly pushes POV in spite sources to the contrary. Regardless of all of the above, the article is neither about the Croatian Sabor nor the Hungarian Diet nor the Hungarian Royal Chancellery nor the fact that all of them were effectively ruled from the court in Vienna. I informed the reviewer that there is an article on the relevant relationship (the personal union) where all of that should and could be discussed at length (naturally backed by sources) as none of the minutia about the relationship of the Habsburg-ruled lands have anything to do with the topic of this particular article per summary style guideline - without success. In short, the reviewer seems to pay more attention to theri POV pushing than actual reviewing the article since they failed to read and comment on at least a half of the prose for nearly two months.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that my suggestion—the facts should be summarized instead of using a PoV term—can be regarded as PoV pushing? Do you think the facts would not support the use of the term? I exclusivelly referred to reliable sources dedicated to the history of Croatia. In contrast, one of the sources you are referring to is a monography about the history of the Székely people ([6]), and your single quote supporting the use of the term "personal union" is from a regional study written by an economist who is expert in the fields of regional politics and urbanisation ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this because you offer zero sources on WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim yet insist on adding minutia (Chancellery) irrelevant to article topic while dismissing source requested and given. If an expert in regional politics is not competent in the field of regional politics, who is? You seem to insist that you are (offering WP:SYNTH) on your say-so. If you want a historian to say exactly the same thing, that the personal union existed unbroken from 1102 until 1918, here you go: [8]. Or here's another if you prefer: [9], or another [10]. Furthermore, here [11] is a source explicitly stating that it is Hungarian nationalist view that the personal union did not exist.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) I have made no extraordinary claims: I suggested that the facts about the relationship between the two countries should be briefly mentioned without using the term "personal union", fully in accordance with the above quoted monographies about Croatian history. (2) The first source you are citing (an encyclopedia about Medieval Wars) indeed says that in 1097 "Croatia was linked to Hungary in a personal union between the two crowns, which continued until 1918", but the second source (a yearbook) adds that Croatia "remained under Hungarian administration until the end of the first world war". Do you really think Croatia was under Hungarian administration? I think this is indeed an extraordinary claim. I do not see what the third source says but it is a monography about nationalism in Serbia and Russia, not about Croatian history. Your fourth source (a work dedicated to the history of Eastern Europe) does not take sides: "Croat historians have tended to portray this link as a limited 'union of crowns' or 'personal union' between the separate kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia ...., whereas many Magyar nationalist historians have preferred to see it as a form of annexation .... Either way, however, Hungarian domination of Croatia was to continue on and off for another eight centuries." This source also makes it clear that the term "personal union" is only one of the two dominant Croatian PoVs, so we should avoid it, as per WP:NPOV. (3) Again, I only want to summarize the facts about the relationship between Croatia and Hungary during Draskovic's lifetime, because without an introduction our readers cannot understand the article's references to 18th- and 19th-century proposals on Croatian-Hungarian relations. Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) Claiming "no personal union" against preponderance of sources claiming otherwise is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You still have no source claiming "personal union was abolished" explicitly. (2) Details about the form of governing during the personal union are offtopic and should be discussed at appropriate article. I have stated above it is indisputable that the specific governing arrangements changed over time but that is not relevant for this article by any stretch of imagination. (3) Readers interested in Drašković can read all they want about personal union as well as any other wikilinked topic. (4) After you claimed above that WP:SYNTH magically does not apply to you making inferences from sources not explicitly supporting your assertions, I'm not at all surprised you think WP:EXTRAORDINARY does not apply to you either (5) It's not about taking sides, it's about having reliable sources directly, explicitly supporting all assertions per WP:V and not including off-topic material in articles per WP:COAT.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I want to assume good faith, but I'm afraind the reviewer is incapable of applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Even if they drop this issue right now, which does not seem likely, judging from their admission that they did not review the bulk of this article and the request for the 2nd opinion, I'd there is little chance of this nomination going anywhere without a proper reviewer who actually applies WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just for the records, (1) I do not need a source claiming that "personal union was abolished" because I do not want to state this in the article. I only want to avoid the use of a possibly misleading PoV term. (2) I have never stated or indicated that WP:SYNTH and WP:EXTRAORDINARY do not apply to me. I only want to give a brief summary about the relationship between Croatia and Hungary based on specialised reliable sources. (3) One of the sources cited by the nominator writes that "the Hungarian domination of Croatia" lasted for 800 years, while another says that "Croatia remained under Hungarian administration" for 800 years. I would also avoid similar statements because they are as much simplicistic as the term "personal union". Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding (3) both those statements are true and (almost) sufficient at the level of an article not dealing with aspects governing/administration itself. In such cases, a wikilinked article, mentioned in an appropriate context and dealing with the topic usually does the trick - e.g. by mentioning the personal union and linking to the Croatia in personal union with Hungary. Then it is not necessary to detail how exactly Croatia was ruled/administered/dominated by Pozsony/Budapest and to explain in detail how exactly Hungary itself was ruled/administered/dominated by Vienna regardless of the local bodies having some (varying over time) powers. I'm certain that the tiniest fraction of readers looking up Drašković care what were powers exactly wielded by the Royal Hungarian Chancellery or if the Royal Hungarian Chancellery existed at all. On the other hand the Croatia in personal union with Hungary article would be an excellent place for all the details where willing readers could easily find them, as suggested by WP:SUMMARY.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, the above (almost) is in brackets because the link would have to read "personal union" or something to that effect to comply with MOS:EGG.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The article Croatia in personal union with Hungary covers the period from 1102 to 1526. Why do you think it is useful for our readers in an article about a politician who was born in 1770 and died in 1856? Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing seems to restrict the period it covers. Obviously, it is missing a lot of material to tackle the period until 1918, but that should not be an impossible task for editors reasonably comfortable in the field. Certainly a great place, much more appropriate than the article on Drašković, to present every conceivable detail impacting or having to do with the union and link from every article mentioning the union, don't you agree?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, why do you want to link an article that is not useful instead of adding a very short summary? Please note that the only specialised source you have so far cited to verify the use of the term "personal union" (A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change) also makes it clear that it is a PoV term, mentioning alternative terms as well. So we should avoid its use. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And we're predictably back to square one. Your question has been asked above several times and answered. To recap: You asked for the source and got few, I challenged you for an explicit source and got none. If you think there's something missing in the personal union article (and I think there is), feel free to add what's necessary to make it as good as practicable. Labelling "personal union" a POV term reads like Hungarian nationalist POV-pushing described in the source also provided above, i.e. it is obviously not a POV term. It may be a term whose practical side changed over time, and the personal union article seems like a good spot to present all of the relevant material. You obviously looked at the personal union article and maybe hoped it requires small addition, saw a lot is missing and came back here asking me to add what's missing in the personal union article (17-20th centuries) into this article where such information as explained above (twice) does not have any earthly business in this article other than to fix the personal union article. That's poor reviewing because you are looking at what's missing in a different article and thinking how to compensate with offtopic material here. Imagine the article on internal combustion engine is poorly written and a reviewer holds the article on Renault Clio ransom against providing a short summary how the internal combustion engine works and how it developed in the 1990s to be quite different from what Daimler built. Your demand to talk of Hungarian Royal Chancellery in an article on the Illyrist Poet is just as reasonable. As to the reason for linking articles with obvious gaps in coverage, I'll link them because they may be improved. You would not unlink all stubs because they're not useful right now, would you? If you are so keen on providing a summary of the workings of the administration shared or otherwise by Hungary and Croatia in the 19th century, what's stopping you from adding it (naturally backed by explicit reliable sources) to the personal union article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please concentrate on what I wrote when describing my thoughts. 1. I do not want to describe the history of Croatian-Hungarian relations between 1526 and 1918. I want to summarize their main features during Draskovic's lifetime in two or three simple sentences. 2. Again, the source you are citing mentions two (2!!!) terms used by Croatian (not Hungarian!!!) historians when describing the relationship between Croatia and Hungary: "union of crowns" and "personal union". You cannot arbitrarily choose one of them because you prefer it for whatever reason. 3. We cannot force our readers to read a lengthy article covering the period between 1102 and 1918 to understand the specific circumsta--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)nces between 1770 and 1856. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not overuse the indents, one indent in addition to the previousl level is sufficient - see WP:INDENT.

Okay, let's concentrate: When you say "I do not want to describe the history of Croatian-Hungarian relations between 1526 and 1918." - it's okay, you don't have to. Nobody does. When you say "I want to summarize their main features during Draskovic's lifetime in two or three simple sentences." - that's okay too. Just add the information, two or three sentences, in the relevant article, the one on the personal union, not the poet. As far as 2 is concerned, please concentrate on the discussion above, the same has been discussed and it is not about taking sides but citing reliable sources explicitly backing the claim made, reserving fringe (Hungarian nationalist) views for discussion in the relevant (personal union) article. Regarding 3, "We cannot force our readers to read a lengthy article covering the period between 1102 and 1918 to understand the specific circumstances between 1770 and 1856" - it's okay too, we can't and they don't have to as long as we provide them a link to the relevant article where they can (now or when the information is there) read all the available information to their heart's content; on the other hand, adding offtopic material to this article sure seems like trying to force them to read material they are not interested in. When an average reader opens the article on Hungary, they most likely need very basic information for start. The same applies here. Quite correctly the Hungarian Royal Chancellery is not mentioned in the Hungary article either.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As your reference to nationalist Hungarian historians shows that you ignore my remarks, I stop discussing the issue with you. This article is far from the level of a GA. I suggest you should withdraw your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have already stated, you seem unfamiliar with the GA nomination process, hence poor reviewing. I cannot withdraw the nomination, you must fail it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)