Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tito–Stalin split/archive1

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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2021 [1].

Tito–Stalin split

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about political conflict between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The conflict was framed in ideological terms by the Yugoslav leadership and led the country to formulate an independent foreign policy. The break with the USSR also meant a political and ideological conflict with the Soviet Bloc, resulting in perception of threat of military invasion by the Soviet forces and their allies as well as wide-ranging purges of actual or perceived political opponents. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steve Smith

On a first read, this is excellent, albeit dense. I think it may be possible to edit the prose to make it a little bit more accessible to people like me whose familiarity with the subject basically boils down to the fact that there was a split. I'll do a detailed review of prose within the next couple of days; for now, I offer the following comments with respect to images and sources:

All images are appropriate, with appropriate captions, and properly tagged as being free. I consider criterion #3 a pass.
All sources appear to be high quality academic sources, except where basic factual information is being cited, in which case the sources are suitably reliable for that purpose. I have not yet delved deeply enough into the article to determine whether all claims are properly sourced, but the sources used are certainly appropriate.
There is some inconsistency as to whether publishers are wikilinked in the "References" section; most are, but Lexington Books and Stanford University Press are not; is there a reason for this?
There is also inconsistency as to whether publishers are linked only the first time they appear, or on all occasions. For example, University of California Press is wikilinked both times it appears, while Oxford University Press is wikilinked only on its first occurrence. Meanwhile, MIT Press is wikilinked only on its second occurrence. These are obviously exceedingly minor quibbles, but should probably be addressed.

As indicated, I will delve more deeply into the text, to review the rest of the criteria, within the next couple of days, but my reaction at this point is that I am very likely to support in something very like its present form. Steve Smith (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thaking this up. I've wikilinked all publishers now (except where no wiki article exists) for consistency.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith It's been almost a week, are you still planning to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

Placeholder. My neck of the woods, although post-war. Looking forward to reviewing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 Still planning to review? (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, have been busy in RW. Will take a look in the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

drop the comma from "under Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin, respectively"
suggest "that also involved Albania and Bulgaria; the friction also related to the communist insurgency in Greece, which Tito's Yugoslavia supported and the Soviet Union secretly opposed."
suggest avoiding the "which... which" by going with "within the Albanian political leadership. This exacerbated tensions with the Soviet Union, which made efforts to slow down Yugoslav–Albanian integration."

Background

the whole "Tito–Stalin conflict during World War II" subsection needs more sources. All but one citation is to Banac 1988, and while Banac is fine as a source, it is mainly about the split itself, not what happened in WWII, and some of the material in this subsection has an "unique" perspective and needs to be balanced with other sources that are specifically about the WWII period. Ramet 3Y pp. 142 & 152 would be useful, also Roberts pp. 41-48, Tomasevich 1969 pp. 80-81 and Pavlowitch 2008 p. 83. There is also material in Tomasevich 1975 and 2001. Areas that need to be addressed include:

"new Communist organisation independent of the KPJ in the NDH" - never heard of that before, needs at least one corroborating source
"the party's new organisational structure and territory of operation were adjusted to account for annexation of Yugoslav territories by Bulgaria" - there is contrasting info in other sources
"Tito informed the Comintern and Stalin about his plans for an uprising against the Axis occupation" the USSR actually called on communists in eastern Europe to revolt (after Barbarossa began)
the symbols bit is overstated, as is the democratic liberties bit and the fighting to restore the king. The KPJ adopted a "popular front" approach in 1935.
the USSR and Britain and their pressure on Tito to fall-in behind DM needs to be mentioned
the whole para about AVNOJ seems one-sided. There are a range of views about what went on then between the USSR and Yugoslavia over AVNOJ, they need to be reflected in the article

I'll just wait for this aspect to be addressed before I go on with the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 thanks for the input, I appreciate it very much. I'll get back to you as soon as I have a look at the suggested sources and whatever can be found on the other issues you raised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the second map, and see MOS:COLOUR
- I have scaled the map to match the one in the lede in terms of its size.
- As regards colours, and font selection in the map, I'd say the font appears to be quite tiny unless the file is viewed in full size and selection of the colours does not seem to help. The file uploaded at the commons was originally essentially black and white - actually the second uploaded version added colour and made minor changes in lines drawn on the map - apparently that was a completely new image and not a "version" of the old. Do you think the original map would be better suited here in terms of MOS:COLOUR and, if so, is there a way to use the old version? (T)
  - What do you mean by changes to lines?
    - For some reason the boundary line around Pula Zone A exclave (at the tip of the peninsula) is drawn slightly differently. In the later versions of the image the northern part of that line traces around the "Zone A" label, while in the original one it does not. In this respect the original B/W version is more true to the source offered. (T)
      - Er..is there a source that supports the change? If no, that's a problem quite apart from the accessibility issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. I don't think there is one. Actually the original upload is also problematic because the red line was added later over the dotted (Morgan) line rendering the key useless. I swapped the map now (and updated its sourcing info at the Commons) because the original one is relevant for the Morgan Line only which became obsolete in 1947 with establishment of the FTT. (T)
  - For the second map, the Zone A/B coloration is fine since there is also labelling; as you note the font size is an issue, as is the coloration of the lines in the legend. The original map addresses the second problem by using different line formatting (dashed, dotted) instead of colour. If you wanted to use the original instead of the second, it should be fairly straightforward to upload. For the first map, not sure if additional labelling could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I see now. A colour blind person might not distinguish between the line coloration in the 2nd map and shading of various groups of countries in the 1st. Let me see what could be done to remedy this and I'll get back to you shortly. (T)
File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply here?
- No idea really. Swapped image. (T)
File:Goli_otok_zatvor.jpg: where is that specific licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a closer look at the licencing and it appears the uploader added a third-party photo and pasted a copy of e-mail correspondence seeking permission from purported author for use. I've swapped the image for a photo of the island viewed from the mainland shore just to be on the safe side. (T)

Nikkimaria thanks for the comments. I'm not entirely certain what are you aiming at specifically re MOS:COLOUR, so please let me know if you meant something else. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I swapped both maps: the lede map for a clickable one where I tried to address the MOS:COLOURS concerns (and omitted the 1960s Albania split as irrelevant for this topic), and the FTT map with a different one dealing with the FTT specifically instead of Morgan Line. Could you have a look at these just to check if those are fine?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first is fine, the second could use a more descriptive caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tomobe03 hasn't edited since 16 December. Hope he's all right but if he's unable to respond to comments it may be time to archive the review. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I have started reading up along the lines pointed out by PM and there is substantial work required to address those issues. I hoped to fix problems quickly, but some unforeseen drains on time in RL limited the time I had available. I plan to address the above issues later on, and renominate at a later date. I'm grateful for all the feedback provided and hope to resume work on this article soon. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.