Talk:Zdenko Blažeković

Questions

At whose request was he extradited after the war? What was he charged with, based on what acts? What sort a trial was held (criminal, war tribunal), under whose authority? Was it fair? (Did he have counsel, other trappings of legal defense?) Magic♪piano 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:03, 10 January 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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• in the lead, the first sentence is too long, and communist should not have an initial capital.
• the first para of "Command of the Ustaše University Centre and Ustaše Youth" needs to be broken up, it is far too long.

Better? 23 editor (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 23, sorry this has stalled, but I have been unable to express properly my issues with the article as it is. Timbouctou has raised a number of issues on the article talk page which I believe do need to be addressed. I am going to place this on hold for a week in the hope that those issues can be addressed in that period. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked said parts according to Tim's translation. 23 editor (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker has essentially disappeared, so I'm going to put this one back in the review queue. Wizardman 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dizdar et al

Basically, the entire article is a slightly expanded entry taken from page 41 of Tko je tko u NDH ("Who's Who of NDH"), a lexicon (that is, a tertiary source) published in Croatia in 1997 and available for viewing at Scribd here. As such, it lacks a lot of context needed to understand some of the statements. In addition, article creator was bold and translated some NDH-era Croatian expressions in a less than correct manner. For example:

• What was the "Ustaše Supervisory Committee"? (Hrvatski ustaški nadzorni stožer) I admit I don't know, but it hardly seems relevant since it existed for less than a month (according to our article, from 11 April to 9 May).
• What was the "Ustaše University Centre"? (Sveučilišni ustaški stožer) ("Stožer" is usually translated as "headquarters" or "command centre", while "Ustaše" saw themselves as a political party. So this seems to have been their student branch active in universities.) But our article does not say this, it just offers a translated organisation title which sounds as if Ustaše had built a research centre or something.
• What is the "Main headquarters of the NDH"? (Glavni ustaški stan) (This was the supreme governing body of the Ustaše (the party) - not NDH (the country) - but again, our article does not explain that).
• The "13th Ustaše Assault Corps" is in fact "13. ustaška jurišna satnija" - "satnija" is led by a "satnik", which is the equivalent of a captain, which means it seems it was a company rather than a corps-sized unit. The difference is pretty huge. Also, what the heck was the 13th Ustaše Assault Company, a reader might ask? (it was a unit composed of students recruited by Blažeković at Zagreb University - but the article does not say that)
• The source says Blažeković "participated in recruiting many students in 1942 and 1943 for the Poglavnikov Tjelesni Zdrug (PTZ)". This article says he joined the PTZ (which he maybe did or didn't). The PTS was btw a regiment (and later a division) sized unit which reported to Pavelić directly, comparable in function and size to the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler.
• The article says Blažeković wrote a book titled "The Youth and the Nation". The source says it was titled "Mladež i država" (The Youth and the State). However - do we know anything more about this book? Because if we don't, how do we know this piece of information is even relevant for inclusion?
• The lede mentioned in the very first sentence that he was an ethnic Croat - something the source does not really claim. Of course, while it is generally accepted that a nationalist organisation such as Ustaše must have been composed of Croats, that does not need to be true (the Ustaše loathed some ethnic groups but were pretty indifferent towards some others), and the source does not mention his ethnicity at all (this and religion are btw wider issues on Wikipedia's articles on Ustaše officials, as somebody decided on their own that all Ustaše were a) Croats and b) Roman Catholics.) Besides, his ethnicity is not really relevant for his notability - the fact the source lexicon does not mention it means that they either take it for granted or consider it irrelevant as well.
• I also have issues with listing this guy in the Category:Croatian collaborators with Nazi Germany and Category:Croatian collaborators with Fascist Italy. For one, all members of Ustaše are already included in that category so there's no need to include each Ustaša article separately. Secondly, we have no evidence this guy ever even met a German or Italian person in his life. The fact that he was part of a regime which was allied with country X does not mean that every person in that country's state apparatus was a collaborator with X. Otherwise we could also describe him (and every other Ustaša) as a collaborator with Slovakia, Bulgaria, Imperial Japan, and Vichy France as well. This implies guilt by association (also an issue stemming from overzealous editors working on Ustaše articles).

My 2 cents, do as you please. Timbouctou (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My GAN review has stalled, but it's largely because I couldn't put my finger on exactly what the issue was, and I believe your comments about the translations and lack of explanations help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zdenko Blažeković/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: 23 editor (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FA: 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FA: 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, 23 editor, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)