Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this article on the GAN backlog. I will start the review a bit later. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments

General

• Kosača CoA isn't needed in the infobox, it can be removed.
• Link Novi with Herceg Novi in the infobox.
• Replace the <br />'s with an unbulleted list ({{ubl}}) per MOS:NOBR.
• Medieval should be uncapitalized in the lede.
• Link Knyaz in the lede and "Early life and rise" section. The rest of the lede is alright.
• The "Despotat of Serbia" in the second sentence in the "Struggle for family inheritance" section is a typo? Is it meant to be Despot of Serbia or the Despotate?
• Link opportunistically.
• "Of major Bosnian nobility, the first to act was Radislav Pavlović, while the Vojsalićs and Radivojevićs attacked in the Lower Neretva valley with success." → The first one to act from major Bosnian nobilities was Radislav Pavlović, while the Vojisalićs and Radivojevićs attacked in the Lower Neretva valley with success.
• The "Incursion into Zeta" and "Citizenship of Dubrovnik" sections both have two sentences and are short, my recommendation would be to merge them.
• Link papacy.
• Merge "According to sources, approximately 2000 (some cite up to 12,000[9]) were converted to Catholicism, as reported by the apostolic legate, Nikola Modruški, who resided in Bosnia between 1461 and 1463" with "Manichean heretics were baptized forcefully".
• Link Rome.
• "Stjepan acted, and with the support of Venice, prepared to attack." → Stjepan acted, and with the support of Venice he was prepared to attack.
• Make the "Land possession" section a sub-heading and move it near an appropriate section.
• "Historiography, personality a legacy" can be shortened to just "Legacy".
• There is an extra space in "In 1964, Ćirković published his historical biography, Herceg Stefan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba , using his predecessors, and in particular the specific research of Ilarion Ruvarac, Jakov Lukarević, Lajos Thallóczy, Aleksa Ivić, Mihajlo Dinić, and Vladimir Ćorović." between doba and using.
• Link Machiavelli.

Images

• File:Stefan Vukcic and the war in Zeta 1441-es.svg is unsourced, initially uploaded by Bratislav in 2009, claiming as own work. Can you find a source for this map?
  • @Santasa99: Have you found a source for this map? --Vacant0 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Vacant, what's up. Well, map like most illustration here is sourced in some text. Admittedly, I don't like it very much, because these kind of articles span entire lifelong eras, while these kind of maps, in a way, try to freeze up a series of events in time into one frame. However, all that being said, it is drawn very much correctly - in our case this map, for the period 1440-1445, can be refed in Sima ćirković's "Herceg-Stefan i njegovo doba", Glava III, and same author "Istorija srednjevekovne bosanske države", pages between 270-275. So, let's keep it for now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'm ready to promote the article to GA. Vacant0 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be great, Vacant. Thank you, I really appreciated your commitment and inputs, it was pleasant experience working with you on this. Until the next time, stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, take care. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Ćirković 1964 source for Stjepan's successor Vlatko Hercegović can be moved to the "Remaining days, death and succession" section, next to the "He was succeeded as herceg by his second and younger son, Vlatko Hercegović, who struggled to retain as much of the territory as he could." sentence per MOS:INFOBOXREF. This also includes the Vego 1982 source.
• "Historians also speak of one other consequence of Stjepan's acquiring the title of herzog, which is that it gave the name to an entire province and represents one of his enduring legacies (See Legacy)." is unsourced.
  • Above sentence is still unsourced.
• I've noticed that Chapter isn't spelled correctly in Ćirković source, fix it.
• First paragraph bloc is unsourced in the "Legacy" section.
• Bibliography is alright.

@Santasa99: I'm pretty sure that you can fix these issues, I'll put the article on the hold until you do it. Besides this, the article is well-written and it meets most of the GA criteria. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Vacant0, yeah, the meaning in some of the sentences changed unintentionally during the copy-edit process, so although the top-notch copy-editor improved the text significantly, a few strange constructions appeared. I will probably make the changes before tomorrow night, and ping you. Happy new year!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Happy New Year to you too! Vacant0 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Most of the article is based on a 1964 source. I'm not saying this should prevent the article from acquiring GA status but it is somewhat bothersome. The Historiography section and the Legacy in particular also seem to reflect mostly a 1960s view although much more recent scholarship exists[1]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing of this kind like Ćirković's monograph exists on this historic person, not in scope nor in depth - Sima's biography of Stjepan is more than adequate for the biography article on Wikipedia. If someone can find essayistic research paper (of the kind presented with a link, pointing in Google Scholar's general direction) that contesting any of the article statement or part, I will be more than a willing to include new finding, change part of the already included statement or parts of the article, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a specific problem with the 1964 source or with the article per se. I might even say I find the article of much better quality than other GA dealing with Eastern Europe or the Balkans in the Middle Ages. However, as a general rule, relying in disproportionate manner on a single, 80 year old source, in a history article, is not a very good sign. In the particular case of the Legacy or Historiography sections the focus is on the way in which academic and popular views of a historical character shift in time. And shift they do, particularly in former Yugoslav republics. Please don't take my remarks the wrong way. I am trying to be constructive and suggest improvements in the event of a future FA nomination. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No Sir, no grudge whatsoever, your inputs are absolutely fair and sensible (you also complimented work so far done, which is rather pleasant and refreshing to hear on Wiki, and I must express my sincere appreciation). However, my response still stands, and (if you have time) here's why: when I decide to (re)write article, I started by reading research papers available online (regional academic repositories, also ceeol, hrčak, while Google scholar often doesn't include every paper - I read and own Sima's Vukčić monograph and Bosnian synthesis, both seminal and I know for certain both still held with highest regard at Sarajevo Uni - practically "bibles" of Bosnian history there), but my basic guiding text was beautiful summary by Pejo Ćošković, written in 2009 for Croatian Lexicographic institute Miroslav Krleža, and based on Sima, which I also included in our refs. There are lots of research papers (mostly coming from local unis like Mostar, Split, Zadar, Dubrovnik, Trebinje, Podgorica, Herceg Novi, and Sarajevo - meanwhile Zagreb and Belgrade seemingly lost interest, I'm guessing, now that war is over and everything down there in the region is divided and thoroughly scent-marked, there is no need for continued sci (& often half-pseudo-sci) efforts in describing it), some peer reviewed some not, but not many primaries - most of them are some combination of synthesis and very narrow original research and/or (re)interpretation, sometimes just polemical, based on some original document(s). There are also variety of subjects covered, in terms of Stjepan Vukčić's aspects of life and career, in some papers we have detailed views on court life and organisation, economic dealings, campaigns, and at least one good paper on religious situation in that area at the time of our "hero", but all of them refer to Ćirković, Jovanović, Thalloczy, Dinić - one of the reasons I decided to include section on "Historiography" is to clear the air on this. In such papers, whose subject is very narrow and offer detailed insight in some event or aspect of daily life (art and preforming, music, court entertainment, or economic development), we can possibly encounter a new interpretation or even new finding, but I haven't found anything of major significance that would invoke a whole "New Interpretation" in terms of re-writing biography of Stjepan Vukčić, while (re)interpreted small detail(s) were not of a kind that would possibly influence the content and discourse of our own Vukčić's bio-article.

So, basically, it boils down to two things: first, whatever new interpretation are available in paper(s), that combine it with preexisting synthesis, I realized, it is related to information unnecessary for or not part of our article (I never intended to go that far and wide, anyway), and second, it is pointless to to ref paper that itself cites Ćirković (or any of his predecessors who wrote on Vukčić) on those parts that we are discussing in our article. Any major "New Interpretation" on our medieval "hero" bio simply don't exist at this point.

But, if someone finds in these paper something that would contest any of the article statement or part, or simply something worth including regardless, I will be more than a willing to make a change and/or new addition.

Regarding FA - while waiting on the GA review, and it was a long wait, I nearly switched to FA nomination, but I changed my mind because getting a FA review on biography article on more-less obscure character in terms of world history, refed with works written in local language, seemed as long shot at the time as my long wait for the GA review. However, I do hope to reach that goal, sooner rather than later. My apologies, it's a bit longer read, but hopefully useful. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0:, that sentence is just referral for the Legacy section - like, say lede, it doesn't need ref because it's invites a reader to jump to the Legacy, where everything is both explained and refed.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)