Talk:Mladen Stojanović

Edit warring

Pls stop. If there are differences in opinion regarding sources or expression in this article, pls bring them here for discussion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

placeofburial field in infobox

Regarding this edit, isn't it obvious that the placeofburial field is intended to explain the person's place of burial in current terms, rather than historical terms, which were in use when the person was interred? Vladimir (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

on the contrary, it is obvious that, consistent with the place of birth field, it refers to the place he was re-interred at in 1961. Prijedor, to which could be added its location in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the RS. Referring him as having been buried in the RS in completely ahistorical. It didn't exist when he was first buried, and didn't exist when he was re-interred. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The birth_place field is shown in the infobox in combination with the birth_date field. It is logical to designate a person's place of birth in historical terms which were actual at the date of his birth (this provides a historical context in which the person was born, which is obviously important for his biography). The placeofburial field quite expectedly has not a corresponding "burial_date" field, as the historical context of the point in time when the person was interred is not so important. The Template:Infobox military person explains: "placeofburial – optional – the place where the person's remains are buried or otherwise interred" (note the present tense). The placeofburial field should designate the location of the person's grave (if it exists). In the case of Mladen Stojanović, his grave is located in Prijedor, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stating that his grave is located in Yugoslavia is "ahistorical", in fact downright nonsensical, as that state no longer exists. 92.241.147.10 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tennis club of Prijedor

Re the comment: a tennis club, or the tennis club? I thought a tennis club was founded in 1914? See http://www.tenis-prijedor.com/tennis/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=34 [1]. It seems that you didn't quite understand that sentence on the page you cited. It says: Počeci teniskog sporta datiraju od 1914. godine, a 1932. godine dr Mladen Stojanović osniva teniski klub, koji postaje jedan od najstarijih u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Translated: "The beginnings of the tennis sport [in Prijedor] date back from 1914, and in 1932 Dr Mladen Stojanović founded the tennis club, which [thus] became one of the oldest [tennis clubs] in the former Yugoslavia." As I suppose you can see now, people began playing tennis in Prijedor in 1914, but there was not a tennis club there until 1932, when Stojanović founded it. Vladimir (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is the claim on the Prijedor page that the tennis club was founded in 1914, but it is not sourced. The page you cited also says that the first players of tennis in Prijedor were some Austrian officers, but it does not say that they founded a club. Also, the tennis court was not built until 1927. You speak Serbo-Croatian? Vladimir (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Prijedor claim regarding the tennis club. I wish I could speak Serbo-Croatian. No, my Serbo-Croatian is limited to "stani ili pucam" and similar phrases, so clearly my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mladen Stojanović/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll do this one, sorry I abandoned it last time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	the prose is a bit flowery and verbose, eg "showered them with bullets", "thwarted in its inception"; and the grammar is a bit clunky in parts. I'm going to do a thorough c/e, feel free to revert my edits if I change the meaning. Krvav je bol - doesn't that translate as just "Bloody pain"? Perhaps it just doesn't translate well?*the translation of "attentat" is weird. I had never come across the word before. You aren't supposed to link in quotes, but a note as to the "propaganda of the deed" meaning is needed here. But isn't he referring to the assassination? Wouldn't attack or even assassination be better?*The Bihac magazine info seems out of chronological order, weren't they in Bihac after Banja Luka? I've called him Mladen in the trial and jail bit because his brother Sreten was there with him. There needs to be better explanation of how he came to be disarming Austrian troops when he was in uni.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead should summarise the important points. It should mention in the first couple of sentences that he was made a People's Hero, as that is one of the reasons he is notable. There is also quite a lot of unnecessary detail in the lead. His father being a priest and him establishing a tennis club, for example. In general it should be significantly condensed, as it is only supposed to be a summary. It should end with the info that many places and schools etc were named after him, and that he is still commemorated in Prijedor. Layout is fine. I'll sort out the words to watch in the c/e. No issues with the rest.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One point about this, the citations don't point to the references. It's not a GA requirement, but I suggest you fix it if you are planning to take it further.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally, but see 2a above, also I have tagged the description of the activities of the Chetniks from Vucinich, Roberts doesn't support the material and the academic consensus is that resistance didn't really begin until June/July.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No discernable OR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It stays on topic, and covers the main aspects of his life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The readable prose size of the article is 44KB or over 7000 words, which is getting right around the maximum. I would encourage an attempt to condense some of the material, as there is some unnecessary detail. I will attempt to this with the c/e.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	the issue I think I raised the first time is quite intractable. The vast majority of the sources on the man are essentially Partisan ones, which are quite frankly, partisan, and make the man out to be basically without flaws. Perhaps he was, but the sources make neutrality quite difficult to assess. There is a bit of puffery which might need trimming. I'll have to go through it in detail.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for the above points to be addressed.This is now a really good article, suggest you consider taking it further.

Progress of review

• Commencing c/e now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hopefully I'll be able to respond in more detail soon, and for now just two short points. Krvav je bol translates word for word as "bloody is pain", that is, inversion of "pain is bloody". The Bihac magazine (Almanah) is mentioned after Banja Luka, so that is in chronological order. In Banja Luka they created Mala paprika. Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. Just about "Bloody is pain". In that phrase, "Bloody" appears to be intended as an adjective, as in "Bloody Hell!" or "bloody hands". "Bloody is pain" doesn't actually make sense in English. "Pain is bloody" would, as would "Bloody pain", but the adjective/noun just do not agree if you put the "is" in the middle. It's not a big issue, but it just sounds like a poor "Engrish" translation. Google translate (I know it has serious limitations) comes up with "Bloody pain". I'm sure you have language skills I don't have, I'm just pointing out how it reads in English. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That means "pain is bloody" and I'll fix it. Serbian has a freer word order than English, due to some grammatical features. In this case, whether adjective comes before noun (krvav je bol) or vice versa (bol je krvav) depends on what one wants to stress more. Vladimir (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's much better. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• C/e completed, have placed the review on hold for seven days for the points to be addressed. Crucial issues are:

• the lead
• the verification of Vucinich
• explanation of how he came to be disarming Austrian troops when he was in uni

• Can I also suggest some improvements and things to chase up. Alt text for images, checking if there are articles for some of the many villages mentioned, citations pointing to refs, when he got married, if he had any kids etc. Great work researching and writing this article, it would be great to have articles like this for all the People's Hero's.

• Re 1a, on how he came to be disarming Austrian troops when he was in uni, no further explanations are given in the source. I suppose, in the days of Austria-Hungary's collapse, there were students who volunteered to participate in disarming of remnants of Austrian troops in Yugoslavia. That sentence can be removed.

• It just begs the question which we can't answer, and seems out of place. I suggest removing it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re 2b, Roberts supports the material in page 26: "Although there were some clashes between the Germans and the Chetniks as early as May 1941..." See also this book: "The Chetniks began their struggle as early as May 1941."

• It comes across as a real throw-away line given the academic consensus on the Chetniks, and lacks the in-depth discussion that would be necessary to place it in context. I suggest it really isn't even relevant to Stojanovich, and could be removed without any imact on the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Very little is said about his wife and children in the sources. I think that his wife, Mira, was from Dubrovnik, but that's unsourced. His son Vojin lives in Dubrovnik, and he visited Prijedor two years ago after 54 years [2]. Vladimir (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. Just something to keep in mind for the future. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Vladimir (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well done, a bit of a process I know, but the article is very much GA now. I suggest you consider going for MILHIST A-class or even FA if you can dig up more about his family. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Peacemaker67. I appreciate your suggestion, but since we lack a wider range of sources on Stojanović (as you hinted above), I think that GA status is currently the top for this article. Vladimir (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)