Talk:Josip Runjanin/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BigChrisKenney (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs) 02:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 05:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @Amanuensis Balkanicus:

I am going to review this article as part of the October 2024 Backlog Drive. BigChrisKenney (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Review

Intro

I have some concerns about some of this text repeating, almost verbatim is some cases, in the body of the article

For instance:

"He was not a particularly prolific composer, leaving behind only a handful of works..." - in the Compositions section.

"...was first selected by popular acclamation as the anthem of the Croatian people at an exhibition of the Croatian–Slavonian Economic Association in 1891." - in the Legacy section.

I made small edits you may wish to review.

Biography

Image and content: Good

“It seems Runjanin's relocation to Ogulin was motivated by his desire to join his father…” can we get this word changed or at least in a quote?

“It is unclear whether the composer was…” Is composer the best word to use here. What about organizer?

I made small edits you may wish to review.

Compositions

Good.

I made small edits you may wish to review.

Legacy

Good.

Sources

All 15 sources are appropriate and relevant to the article.

@BigChrisKenney: I wasn't expecting this to be picked up so quickly. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article! Your edits are excellent. Please review the revisions I made. I changed "seems" to "appears to have been" to reflect the source's uncertainty regarding the matter. I hope this is alright. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Assessment

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article has been stable with no new edits in over a week. I am concerned that shortly after I pass the article, the back and forth edits will continue. At this time, however, I believe that the article meets the criteria: WP:GACR6. BigChrisKenney (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Joy

Having seen the recent rewrite, I noticed some details, and here's one unrelated to the rewrite but still in the article - we would do well to lose the citation to https://web.archive.org/web/20181209212456/https://www.apnews.com/075b0b61c98a978531d7437a5f7694aa because it's just the fourth one saying his ethnic origin as if it's somehow controversial (it'd be WP:FRINGE to consider this factoid controversial and spamming citations doesn't do all that much to deter vandals). At the same time the context of it is wildly off-topic - it's a news story written at the height of Operation Storm in 1995, and the title is inflammatory to boot. If we wanted to use this to point out some fact about the relations between the ethnicities so that it's somehow generally relevant, that'd be another story, but otherwise it's just seems like pointless and anachronistic (WP:UNDUE), and we have better sources than a news story anyway (WP:NOTNEWS). (Done now.) --Joy (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The note about being from the village of Runjani is sourced to a newspaper article where the author just says:

POREKLOM iz Runjana je i srpski kompozitor Josif Runjanin (i prezime to govori) [...] Njegova porodica se odavde preselila u Bijeljinu, zatim u Slavoniju, a na kraju u Srem.

This doesn't seem very scientific, though. Trying to confirm this I only get some blogs. This one[1] has a lot of little details about it, but no apparent references. If we take it at face value, it says the first migration to Bijeljina was in 1718, which is 103 years before the birth of the topic of this article. So that seems fairly off-topic as well, since an encyclopedia is supposed to be general, it shouldn't fixate on intricate details of etymology. Likewise multiple other migrations are mentioned so noting just one doesn't seem very helpful to the reader. --Joy (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I have nothing against removing the AP article as you did, though I stand by its inherent reliability as a source. Regarding Runjani, there are other sources (albeit non-academic ones) that discuss this aspect of his ancestry. [2] Again, it makes little difference overall, so it's not a huge deal. Pavlovic 1984, p. 23 discusses his ancestors coming from Serbia, fleeing the Ottomans: " Njegovi preci došli su iz Srbije, bežeći ispred Turaka." So, I rewrote that passage accordingly and removed the etymology. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That D. Poznanović article at Sremske novine could be a reference (hopefully we can resolve the first name of the author as well), as it seems to internally reference other published works in a reasonable manner. Saying Runjanin's grandfather left a written record about his family coming from Runjani near Loznica is pertinent. --Joy (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus READ [[3]] Write this Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability .If you put ethnicity in the lead one more time, I will report you to the authorities for disrespecting Wikipedia and Serbian POV.It says the same under the biography. What will be written the same thing twice? It's obviously a Sebian POV.216.189.154.101 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you have made your point, please leave it to the GA reviewer to determine if the article meets the criteria, including the NPOV criterion. Once the review is over one way or the other, every interested editor can and should improve the article further. For what it's worth, I see no issue in mentioning one's ethnicity/ethnic origin in the lede just like it is mentioned in featured biographies like André Messager, Kylie Minogue, Cosima Wagner etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.