Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [1].

Dobroslav Jevđević

edit
Nominator(s): User:PRODUCER and User:Peacemaker67 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant refinement in the last few months, including a GAN review and MILHIST ACR, and we believe it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Not sure you can justify a non-free image of the subject where he appears in a free image later in the article. That being said, would File:Jevđević_with_Italians.jpg still be free if initial publication were in Croatia? Since publication location is uncertain, should account for both possibilities
  • We were working on the basis that the closer, almost face-on image in the infobox is justified in that the other image (being a profile shot from further away) doesn't really show his appearance properly for the purpose of identification. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: page formatting
  • No citations to Goldstein 29 October 2012.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I'm making some minor tweaks now. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Dank! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Images - both images are most likely PD (either PD-croatia or PD-because as a work in a non-signatory state of the Berne Convention), but the situation with a now defunct state is often vague and confusing. I can file a request for advice on Commons to be sure, if you want. GermanJoe (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great help. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added that question to WP:Media copyright questions (PD-status of ...?) for Wiki-files. If you have any additional info, please provide it there. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK (see comments), two requests for feedback on Wiki and Commons didn't gain any additional advice.

  • Based on available information both files should be ok (added PD-croatia as suggested for the second possible country of publication).
  • WP:NFCC allows fair-use, when no other image for the "same encyclopedic purpose" is available. The second image is of very low quality and the subject is barely recognizable, so both images are used for different purposes within the article.
  • Unlikely, but if any other images can be found later, the actual photos should be exchanged. GermanJoe (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Moved to WT:V#phrasing of the non-English sources rules
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The references to Goldstein and Dizdar are non-English so they need to be made to comply with WP:NONENG - please cite the relevant portion of the text in each case. Is Prometej.ba a reliable source? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what aspect of WP:NONENG you are referring to. Those non-English sources are being cited for information, are you questioning whether those sources actually support the information in the article? If so, which citation(s) and on what basis? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, please re-read WP:NONENG. I see nothing really ambiguous in the text of that policy section. You are citing a non-English source for information, and you don't have to provide a translation, but you still have to provide the original text. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the policy requiring me to do so as Peacemaker pointed out. If there is a statement you believe isn't supported by the source please specify which. The piece written by Goldstein and published by Prometej is profusely referenced itself and written by a reliable author. It was published after a presentation (which Goldstein spoke at) was held in Prozor-Rama. [2] I see no issues with the source given the circumstances. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What part of the linked policy makes you think that there is no requirement to do what I wrote? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm confused. I only checked Dizadar ... this article doesn't seem to be quoting a foreign source (for which NONENG would require a quote in the original language), only paraphrasing it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, did you see the bolded text "When citing a non-English source for information"? The verb "citing" doesn't imply "quoting". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I saw that. What I haven't seen is which information you're challenging, or why. Any good-faith challenge is fine ... if you have reason to believe that something is wrong, you should absolutely say so. But what's not fair is "Policy says you have to provide it if I challenge it, so I'll just go ahead and challenge everything, just in case, without giving a reason". The same issue comes up in WP:BURDEN ... information has to be provided if someone challenges it, but that doesn't mean that I have to jump if someone says "I'm challenging everything" without giving a reason. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would never do that. The issue is that the NONENG policy section makes for a different situation - it sets a higher threshold of verifiability on information referenced to foreign sources. The threshold is such that it requires a quote in the foreign language, and sometimes more (a translation). This policy section wasn't in place back when I first arrived, and it isn't uniformly respected across the project, but it makes sense - the standard of verifiability on English-language works is that you have to have enough information to find them and check them, while the standard of verifiability on foreign-language works is that you have to have more than that because it's that much easier to have a source misinterpreted when it's not written in the native language. So, to guard against that, we quote the relevant part of the source. It certainly sounds like something that should be done in a featured article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm still not sure what part of the policy requires this (sans challenge). It says, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." If you are questioning a particular bit of information, please state what it is. If not, with greatest respect I don't think your comment is in accordance with the policy. In any case, I understand you have the requisite language skills, so you know if it is consistent or not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You read the second bullet point, but ignored the first one. It requires both the original text and the translation for quotations. The second one, about citations, may seem to be distinct, but it isn't - yes, its phrasing leaves out an explicit mention of providing the original text, but it then implies that it would have been logical to think that it's necessary to provide a translation. The intent seems clear to me - doing both is considered the best. So, a featured article doing neither - doesn't sound right. But, I'll go search the talk page archives there to see if this question came up before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Case White in the winter of 1942/43." According to the Manual of Style, the slash should be an en dash instead.
    • I'd prefer "winter of 1943", if that's okay. MOSNUM says: "2005–06 (unspaced) generally denotes a two-year range; 2005/06 may be used to signify a period of 12 or fewer months, such as a corporate or governmental fiscal year, if that is the convention used in reliable sources; sports seasons spanning two calendar years should be uniformly written as 2005–06 season." - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone with Dank's version.
  • Operation Alta: "and urged him to undertake this operation as soon as possible in order to clear the Partisans...". The "in order" is a bit of wordiness that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
  • "participated in the Italian-led Operation Alta. Operation Alta...". Try to avoid repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another, like in this example.
  • "with Germans and NDH troops driving from the north and Italian and Chetnik forces pushing from the Neretva River." This is a type of "with + -ing" structure that is typically awkward. To fix it, you could try a semi-colon before this, followed by "Germans and NDH troops drove from the north and Italian and Chetnik forces pushed from the Neretva River."
  • "while others were sent later to northern Dalmatia to aid Momcilo Dujic's forces." Flip "sent" and "later" in order for the best possible sentence flow.
  • Case White: "and also recognition of almost all of eastern Herzegovina as a 'Chetnik zone'." No need to even have "also" here.
  • How were the people who went to Mostar to kill him stoppped? An assassination attempt seems to be an important enough event to justify an extra sentence or two of explanation.
  • Withdrawal: "after which he was captured and killed." Who is "he"? Durisic? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed, except that there is no more information available on the attempted assassination. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – Hard for me to know much about whether this is comprehensive, but it seems so at first glance to this reviewer who knows nothing on the topic; I wish there was more on the assassination, but can't penalize the article when the sources don't provide anything. I'm satisfied with the writing after the tweaks, and am not concerned about whether or not a translation is provided for the Serbo-Croatian sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. I am particularly impressed by the high-quality sourcing. I did notice a few isbn-10s where we should use isbn-13 if available. Some minor prose issues remain, but nothing significant enough to hold-up promotion to FA. Nice work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dobroslav_Jevđević/archive1&oldid=1086353872"