Talk:Vahida Maglajlić

Lead - a bit too long?

The lead now strikes me as a bit too long. Having been expanded three times, it now makes up a quarter of the article (c. 2000 out of c. 8000 characters). It also does not quite work as a summary since some facts do not reappear in the article body (eg. Italy and Hungary annexing parts of Yugoslavia). I believe we should shorten it by saving some not-so-basic facts for the body of the article, per WP:Lead. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Which facts were you thinking of cutting? 23 editor (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely those that do not reappear later on (per WP:Lead). I would leave AFŽ for the body (she only presided over it for the last four months of her life, during which she spent at least as much time fighting as doing politics). Her burial and reburial should also be made more concise, as well as the manner of her death. I would contend that the the information about her siblings is not vital for the lead. The Palestine connection is also rather trivial. All in all, I would try to cut it to c. 1000 characters, mostly by rewording for concision rather than removing info. Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. We can leave out the AFŽ, but the political activism deserves a brief mention. Agree re: burial and reburial. You phrase it to your liking, and I'll provide feedback. The sibling info isn't vital, but I added it since the last paragraph is usually reserved for summarizing the person's legacy, and currently the "Legacy" section of the article isn't very bulky (suggest adding info like the Banja Luka medical school being named after her till '92, street in Sarajevo being named in her honour, etc. Leave this in the body, exclude it from the intro). This sort of "clipping" removes the final para almost entirely, save for the PLO leaflet thing. I'd leave this since it gives insight into her legacy beyond the borders of Yugoslavia. Agree that the intro should be reworded for concision. In short, the final paragraph could be cut by about 80% and merged with the middle paragraph, with the PLO information coming right after the sentence that mentions when and under what circumstances she died. 23 editor (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the medical school and the street should certainly be mentioned, as well as the fact that nothing in Banja Luka bears her name anymore. I had trouble finding proper sources, though. I'll try again. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the present-day street of Vahida Maglajlić in Sarajevo previously bore the name of Žikica Jovanović Španac, while the old street of V. M. was given some other name. Eventually, Žikica remained streetless. In Republika Srpska, V. M. has a street in Kneževo ([1], p. 9, no. 181). Vladimir (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we find proper sources about the streets named after Maglajlić to use them in the article? I could only find one article on that topic, discussing Banja Luka's streets named after women – or rather lack of streets named after women. Maglajlić is cited as an example of "forgotten women" in Banja Luka. The article does not mention Sarajevo or Kneževo though. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources enumerating streets named after an individual are not very common, as far as I know. Beoković 1967 has a statement referring generally to the women included in the book (page 5), which says that schools and organisations were named after them. It does not mention streets, but IMO it's not OR to use that reference in the Legacy section to state that schools and streets were named in her memory following the war, commemorating her service to the Partisan cause (as in the Bursac article). And to mention it in the lead too. Elaboration about towns and cities with streets and organisations named after her is completely superfluous. Vladimir (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The intro looks decent. Good job! 23 editor (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)