Talk:Jezdimir Dangić/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks reports no broken external links (no action required)
Copyvio Detector reports no issues with the article (no action required)
There are a couple of disambiguation links in the article: Brčko and Visoko. Please point them to required destinations.

Done.

There are several duplicate links in the article. Please remove those per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Belgrade, Vlasenica, Goražde, Romanija, Pero Đukanović (redlink), Sarajevo, Zvornik, Kladanj, Tuzla, and Ustaše militia.

Fixed.

There is a [when?] cleanup tag in the article - please address that one as appropriate.

Addressed.

Images:
- Infobox image is non-free but has NF-rationale (no action required)
- Map Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43.png is AFAIK correct, but has no reference besides another work at the commons which lists a substantial list of works as sources. While some of the works cited there are reliable others are not. I do not doubt for a second that the map is correct, but I'd strongly recommend you to add one reliable source containing this map to file description of this particular map. The same source could be added to Independent State Of Croatia 1941 (East) Locator Map.png
  - After checking for it: Tomasevich p.90 contains such a map. (added at the Commons)--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gorazde.jpg image probably requires Freedom of panorama licence at the commons. Since Bosnia and Herzegovina allows FOP for non-commercial use such as wiki, this is no dealbreaker here, but I urge you to consider adding an appropriate template at the Commons - just to make sure that the image is not deleted from the Commons and the article, if nothing else.
- Warsaw image is properly licenced
- All the images have appropriate captions
Sourcing and referencing appears to be fine
- I believe Dizdar & Sobolevski book is in Croatian (SC appears to be anachronistically applied for a book published in Zagreb in 1999), but GAR is not about content, therefore I will leave this up to you.
I believe MOS:HYPHEN does not permit hyphenation of "one-hundred"

Removed.

Not sure on this one, but shouldn't Over the period 13–23 October 1941... be "Over the period of 13–23 October 1941..."?

Fixed.

In Dangić is said to have held a "fierce hatred" of Muslims, allegedly saying that he wished to "kill them all," and that he had an "absolute willingness" to collaborate with the Germans., is there really need for the quotation marks? Are those direct quotations, and if so who did say that? If not, the quotation marks lead to a conclusion that the qualifications were inaccurate as described in WP:SCAREQUOTES.

Since Hoare uses the word "allegedly" as to whether Dangić said these things or not (and since Hoare himself uses quotation marks when referring to the statement) I don't think quotation mark use is problematic.

Ditto for The massacres were "above all an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology of the Chetnik movement."
In ...Vukmanović raised Draža Mihailović's attack on Tito's headquarters at Užice and the Chetnik's failure to fight the occupiers., I assume the occupiers are Axis forces. Or is that meant to refer to some specific group (Germans, Italians etc)?

Added "Axis forces"

Shouldn't ...14-article resolution was created... be "...14-article resolution was adopted (or drafted)..."? When I read "created" I don't really know if it was adopted or written and proposed.

Fixed.

Please link Croatian Home Guard

Done.

Could you please clarify, at least here, what is meant by ...having the ability to legalize and supply Chetnik forces. - the "legalize" bit of course. I have no idea what is meant by that.
I trust an endash is needed in "German-Muslim"

Done.

I think the "Soviets" should wikilink to something, perhaps "Soviet Union".

Done.

When the article says ...executed by shooting..., do you refer to execution by firing squad or was he shot in some other manner, i.e. not by a firing squad?

Clarified.

Great work! The article covers a really interesting topic in a very informative way. There's quite little to cover to meet all GACR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom. Sorry for the unreasonably long delay. I've addressed most of your comments and will get to the ones regarding images tommorow. 23 editor (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Could you just explain the "legalize" pointed out above?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "legalize" bit has to do with the fact that the Chetniks were declared illegal by the Italian and German authorities in the NDH. However, some Chetnik units were "legalized" by the two parties due to the fact that they were involved in fighting the Communists rather than the Germans and Italians. How would you suggest I explain this in the article? 23 editor (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "...and having the ability to supply Chetnik forces, no longer considered illegal by the Germans." or something along those lines. I am acquainted with the subject in broad terms, but I had no clue what "legalize" meant. I think this sums up the Germans thought them illegal and this changed at that specific point in time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one more thing. There is a passage:

In order to enlist further Chetnik aid and to intensify the Chetnik–Partisan split, Dangić was invited to Belgrade in late January by Nedić and General der Artillerie (lieutenant general) Paul Bader. There, meetings were held from 30 January to 2 February 1942.[44] Present were Bader, Professor Josif Matl, and Colonel Erich Kewisch for the Germans, Dangić and Pero Đukanović for the Chetniks, and Nedić and Aćimović for the Serbian puppet government.[65] Eventually, the two reached an agreement.

I'm looking at "the two reached an agreement" and can't stop thinking there were three parties in the negotiations and seven people were talking. I assume that "the two" means Dangić and an unspecified German (presumably Bader), but this sure reads odd. Could you rephrase that last sentence?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, how does this look like? 23 editor (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed now. I'd recommend sorting out the reference language issues too, but since that's not a part of GACR, I'm closing this. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]