| 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.
|
- As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. Let me know if there are any you object to.
its translation was published in 1925 - translation into what language from what other language? From Czech?
- The source does not say explicitly: "The publication in 1925 of the translation of Czech historian Milada Paulová’s book on the activities of the Yugoslav Committee.[50]" It is logical to conclude that it is from Czech, but I assume that would be OR. Note 50 specifies "Milada Paulová, Jugoslavenski odbor: Povijest jugoslavenske emigracije za vrijeme svjetskoga rata, 1914–1918 (Zagreb: Prosvjetna nakladna zadruga, 1925)." which appears Croatian (although this is not explicitly specified anywhere, although it seems logical for the given place of publication). Since understanding of the article topic does not require this information, I'm fine with omitting it, or specifying "translation into Croatian" if necessary. I assume readers would infer the original is in Czech anyway without information to the contrary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
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.
|
- Pass, no issues. Spot checked 5 sources - all contained the relevant cited information.
|
|
|
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).
|
- This is one where I can see disputes about the reliability/neutrality of the sources being an issue, but my (inexpert) survey shows nothing egregious. It is not required that all the sources be strictly neutral as long as the article is neutral, and reflects the state of reliable scholarship accurately. A few questions/requests for more detail:
- What is the connection of Boban to the Serb National Council? Do you regard this as a neutral source?
- Apparently there's no connection at all. I'd call her neutral. More significantly, her work is not used to reference any value judgments that could introduce any biased POVs.
- Jankovic 1964 was written during the Yugoslav period under an autocracy. Would this have had an impact on their scholarship?
- Even if it did (and I'm not saying it did), his work is used to reference four points of timeline, no value judgments capable of introducing biased POVs.
- Ditto Kritzman 1970 - same question as above
- And essentially the same answer as above, except his work is used to reference a single point of timeline.
- A lot of the citations are contained within Yugoslavism: History of a Failed Idea - could you describe this book and its editor in a little more detail with regards to its neutrality?
- The editor is a historian with his own wiki article here: Dejan Djokić. None of the chapters used as references are authored by him though and the references relying on Pavlowitchs and Russinow support points in timeline and no value judgments. What are your specific concerns regarding neutrality?
-
- The topic covered by the book is fairly uncontroversial, basically everyone discussed by the article adopted one of two major forms of Yugoslavism. It is common interpretation that one prevailed in the first and the other in the second Yugoslavia and that both basically lived and died with the two Yugoslavias. The specific sources are selected because they cover certain aspects discussed by the article in greatest detail (as far as I can tell at least). The article gives them due weight.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Štambuk-Škalić, Marina; Matijević, Zlatko, eds. does not appear to be used for a cite. Why is it listed as a source?
- Not sure. Presumably I planned to use it and then chose a different source instead. Removed now.
- Questions answered, issues addressed, pass.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- Earwig finds nothing worth noting, hold for manual spot check.
- Spot checked 5 sources - no issues found.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- Readable and at a good level of summarization, making the context for the complex issues clear. From looking into a few of the sources I can't see anything major missing.
|
|
|
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.
|
- No obvious issues of neutrality but worth double-checking in final review.
- No issues found, pass.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- Copyedit last spring, no disputes on talk, no edit warring, pass.
|
| 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.
|
- Most images are copyright-free and well-tagged, but File:Krfska.jpg is incorrectly tagged and missing a US copyvio tag.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- Well illustrated with good images - minor issues on captions (if any) can be fixed in prose review.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
