Jump to content

Talk:Ivo Andrić/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ɱ (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will be starting this review shortly. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • Infobox:
    • Did you like the expression in File:Andric Ivo.jpg more than in File:S. Kragujevic, Ivo Andric, 1961.jpg? The latter is a much better quality photo.
      • Yes, it show him head-on. Are there any problems with the licensing?
    • Can you interlanguage link his spouse? See below templates.
      • Done
        • The templates are normally used to indicate the change in language and indicate the article being missing from the English version. It really can throw off a reader how it is now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, she's only notable for being married to him, so I've removed the link.
  • In the lead:
    • Link South Slav?
      • Done
    • It states "After the war, he studied South Slavic history... . Between 1920 and 1941, he worked in the diplomatic service of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia." Did he study history while working in the diplomatic service? Before reading the details of the article, one would presume so based on this wording.
As the article states, he was in the Foreign Ministry from '20 to '23, only to be forced to finish his doctoral studies. These lasted until the following year, at which point he resumed his diplomatic career. Any suggestions on how to make this clearer?
How about "From 1920–23 and again from 1924–41"?
    • I believe the English name for Na drini ćuprija should also be italicized.
      • Done
    • "The likes of" usually is used to refer to people similar to those listed, so I believe the idiom is misused. Perhaps use "over authors/people including" or something similar. The phrase is used again later in the body in the same way.
      • Altered
    • "the Belgrade apartment in which he spent much of World War II" sounds really clumsy in the sentence. Is there a better way to phrase this?
      • Rephrased
    • Wikilink, explain briefly, or explain in a note what an "ethno-town" is.
      • Still looking
  • Early life:
    • I believe birth names are traditionally given in the lead and first sentence of the body; what prompted the use of Ivo and the explanatory note?
      • Done
    • What happened to former mentions of his birthplace as Dolac?
It's near the town of Travnik, but its located inside the municipality.
Then I'd recommend saying "near downtown Travnik" or "in Travnik", but I suppose I'm okay with it like it is too.
    • Mentioning Andric's father's death, you should either link the sentences with a semicolon or add 'at the time' at the end; otherwise they seem a bit disjointed.
      • Done
  • Primary education:
    • I presume because he only had a three-year scholarship, he lost it for a time before repeating the sixth grade, even though it's stated after that?
      • I presume so as well, though the source doesn't go into details.
    • Please wikilink the two Croat instructors (looks like for one you need to use a template like {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, or {{ill-WD}})
      • Done
    • Can you link or explain "lyrical reflective prose"?
      • Done
  • Student activism:
    • You should probably link or explain what "anti-Habsburg activities" are; you only mention Habsburg once before with barely more information linking it to Austria-Hungary.
      • Clarified
    • I don't think it would hurt to say "University of Zagreb in Croatia" and "University of Vienna in Austria"
      • Most people know where Vienna is, unlike Zagreb. I've linked Croatia-Slavonia and left Vienna as is.
    • Are there dates you can associate with Andric's illness or leaving Vienna?
      • Explained that he transferred to Vienna in 1913. The article already says he transferred to Krakow in early 1914. Hawkesworth doesn't provide any specific dates.
    • "For a time, Andrić had considered transferring to Russia" should be changed to "a school in Russia" or something similar.
      • Done
More to come. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The World War I section looks fine, although the image subject is disputed and therefore the caption suffers. Perhaps consider uploading this CC BY image of the church of St Mihovil in Ovčarevo. Apparently there's also a bust of Andric there now.
How do we know it's PD? 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The host, Panaramio, has a sidebar on the right, "Photo details" that includes the Creative Commons symbol along with "Attribution". Click the symbol and it details it as Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • By dispute, I presume you are referring to the fact it likely doesn't show Princip. This is irrelevant since it's still the most famous photo of the assassination and is meant to illustrate the event/aftermath, as the caption would suggest.
        • There should be no interest in how famous the photo is. It's not an article on the assassination, and that article already has the photo. The fact that the photo could be of the arrest of a bystander, and doesn't even clearly show anything, and cannot have a better explanatory caption than "aftermath pictured" is very weak. The photo I suggest is a very worthwhile alternative of a more obscure subject. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interwar:
    • "and was back in hospital" in sentence 3 should have a "the" or something similar before "hospital". Perhaps say "back in hospital care"?
      • "back in hospital" sounds fine in my neck of the woods, but I've changed it nevertheless
    • This first paragraph leaves me a lot of questions - what happened to Vojnovic's two appeals, were they even responded to? What happened to his uncle?
      • Hawkesworth offers no explanation as to what happened with Vojnović's appeals, only saying Andrić took matters into his own hands. His uncle's fate is explained under "Advancement"
    • I wouldn't link figs, they're common fruit.
      • Done
  • Early diplomatic career:
    • If you're sticking with American English (that's what it looks like), change "meagre" to "meager". And although all the rest of the writing is in American style, the dates aren't in American MDY style?
      • Canadian English actually. Some words we use the British spelling (meagre, colour, etc.) and others we use American (realize, materialize, etc.) Canada also uses DMY for the most part (in government documents, etc.)
  • Advancement:
    • "all civil servants, especially those in the Foreign Ministry, had to have a doctoral degree" is confusing. If all civil servants needed degrees, how did Foreign Ministry servants especially need them? Either you need them or you don't, you can't 'especially need them', right?
      • Removed
  • World War II:
    • How did Andric help Polish prisoners?
      • Source doesn't go into detail (see below)
    • Andric was forced to leave the friend's apartment and evacuate the city, but that was merely temporary? The apartment he later stayed in during further bombing was the same? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same apartment, he was under de facto house arrest so his movement was restricted under normal circumstances.
  • Later life:
    • The caption should make clear where Andric is in the photo
      • Done
    • The second paragraph has a great many sentences starting with "In [month] [year],". Consider placing some dates at the end of the sentences, and/or saying "in the following year"
      • Done
    • Link the 1950 sentence with the next sentence; you can just replace the period with a semicolon.
      • Done
  • Nobel Prize:
    • Here the caption note "right" isn't really needed. Their genders should be easily identifiable from the photograph
      • Removed
    • link AVNOJ
      • Done
  • Influences:
    • There should be an "and" before "British writers" in the list in the first paragraph here
      • Done
  • Legacy:
    • Is the name of the mentioned committee given? It's given four sentences, but isn't mentioned by name?
      • Done (if I understood correctly)
    • I'll want to review the references later, though I notice here that you cite Google Maps for the existence of those streets. Perhaps Maps can verify that streets are named "Ive Andrica", but there are many other people who share his surname. You really should find a reference that mentions these streets being named after him, or they should be removed.
  • That's all except references and images. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive review, Ɱ. I'll get to your comments tomorrow because I have some business to attend to today. 23 editor (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images look fine except File:1914 Miljacka Sarajevo.png and File:Andric Ivo.jpg. For the first one, in order for it to be Public Domain in the US, it needs to have been published before 1923 (other qualifications can apply). The book the image is taken from was published in 2006, and makes no note of the image's copyright status. It does however mention on page 76 that it was borrowed from the Historical Museum in Sarajevo. Perhaps inquire to them or search around for further copyright information. Alternatively, find a verified free image. As well, you'll need to make sure the image is compliant with Bosnia and Herzegovina's copyright laws (which I'm not familiar with); it would also need a copyright tag for that country. For the second image, please find archive urls or other sources as the urls given aren't functioning. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You use Citation Style 1 in your Works cited section, though CS1 uses accessdates (read here). I would add those access dates to any urls given.
For Rakić 2000, you list pages 81-91 in the works cited and notes. I would remove one of those instances, but it would also be good to have more specific page numbers to support that "most Bosniak criticism...appeared...immediately before the breakup of Yugoslavia".
The last external link doesn't work. It's odd that different archive dates for the same link work, so perhaps consider either not using the template, or talking to the template author that contrary to what the template says (that the date works with all of the authors), it won't work with Andric and that perhaps the template can be adjusted. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: It seems like that's it. When the above is fully addressed (I see you already worked on some), I'll be happy to pass this. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the main talk page, this article contains no list of works by the author. It is standard in literary biographies to list works in a section titled "Works" or "Bibliography". Obviously a complete bibliography is beyond the scope, but something at least as complete as seen in Books and Writers (see talk page) for it to be a complete article. -- GreenC 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, prose issues addressed. Some things to clarify:

  1. An ethno-town or ethno-village is basically an attraction designed to look like the stereotypical (or idealized) setting where members of a particular religious/national/ethnic group live (or once lived). If you're from the US, imagine a faux-Civil War tourist town in the South with civil war re-enactors in period dress, etc. You get the picture. Unfortunately, since the term "ethno-town/village" is of relatively recent date, none of the major or minor dictionaries carry a definition, so my above explanation would fall under WP:OR if included in the article on its own.
  2. Re: U of Vienna. Most people know where Vienna is, unlike Zagreb. I've linked Croatia-Slavonia and left Vienna as is.
  3. Explained that he transferred to Vienna in 1913. The article already says he transferred to Krakow in early 1914. Hawkesworth doesn't provide any specific dates.
  4. His uncle's fate is explained under "Advancement"
  5. Hawkesworth says that Vojnović appealed orally, followed by Andrić's written appeal.
  6. Canadian English actually. Some words we use the British spelling (meagre, colour, etc.) and others we use American (realize, materialize, etc.) Canada also uses DMY for the most part (in government documents, etc.)
  7. Same apartment. He was de facto under house arrest so that explains a lot.
  8. Hawkesworth doesn't say exactly how, re: Polish prisoners. All she says is that he tried but wasn't successful.
  9. No one has ever called me out for using Google Maps (FA's use it, such as Oerip Soemohardjo). Also, Ivo Andrić is the only person by that name that is of any significance in the former Yugoslavia. So the idea that this Andrić could be mistaken for another one doesn't hold much water. 23 editor (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if all of the prose issues have been addressed. I'd really like if you could indicate what you did within my above bullets (as sub-bullets) so I don't have to pick through all your edits. As for the comments you wrote today, it would also be much easier to respond if they were paired with what they're in response to... Anyway, if "ethno-town" is such a neologism that it doesn't appear to have a citable definition (I looked as well), then I would strongly recommend either explaining it in a note or using a common term in conventional usage that's also more intuitive, such as "living-history museum" (used on the Colonial Williamsburg page) or "Open-air museum".
The FA you mention was passed in 2012 without very many people actually critiquing. I'm skeptical of that, and would not believe it would pass based on current standards. However based on what you say of Andric, I'm not very concerned.
Thanks for your responses, I'll reply further soon. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this definitely should be included. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to four more things inline. The only other outstanding comments were about the two photos and the absence of access dates. Also I saw you removed the two external links recently. Why? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the external links because they either contained a bibliography (which the article now has) or because they are already used as references, hence to avoid over-linking. 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late to reply; I don't think people mind if there's another biography, it's not overly redundant. And having them already as references - most people don't look at all the references, but external links are the main secondary sources people look to for more information here. I think the links to the Nobel Foundation and to Andric's website are most appropriate and beneficial. Most biographies will have links to their subject's official website (if they have one), and the same goes for many Nobel laureates. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded the photo. Is there anything I've overlooked, Ɱ? 23 editor (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: Okay, thanks. I hope this'll make going to FA easier too. Passing. All the best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't thinking of taking it to FA, but nonetheless, thanks for the comprehensive and thorough review. Best, 23 editor (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivo_Andrić/GA1&oldid=1084071250"