Talk:Marija Bursać/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Belgrade is overlinked in the last para. perhaps "farming family" rather than "agricultural family"? suggest piping the contemporary name, Young Communist League of Yugoslavia typo: inhabited primaily perhaps "only the boys attended elementary school in Drvar" The reader does not know why Tito would have consulted Đuro Pucar. was she wounded or injured?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	check compliance with MOS:NUMERAL, I see a mix of numerals as words and in figures in the penultimate section. suggest linking Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the lead. suggest linking Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Early life section
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.	several of the references are missing a numerical identifier (oclc, isbn etc), available via Worldcat.
	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).	suggestion: fn 32 and 35 could be shortened and cited fully in the References section.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Just a query about the infobox picture. It appears to be from a book published in 1967, not 1939. This would make it PD in B-H, but not in Yugoslavia (if there still was one), and it would have become PD in B-H before the URAA date. If that is the case, the B-H and US licences would suffice. What evidence is there that the photograph was actually published in 1939? You might have to help me with the translation here. Also the harvest pic, File:Žetva u Saničkoj dolini (1942).jpg. This is from the huge znaci gallery, but where was it published before that? To claim it is PD, you must be able to show it was published before either 1966 (Yugoslavia) or 1977 (B-H). Likewise, File:Partizanke na Dinari (1943).jpg. There is no evidence in the licensing of File:Marija Bursać 1984 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg that says that stamps are in the public domain in Croatia. It can be assumed that the stamp was published in 1984, but surely the artwork is copyrighted by the artist?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	all of the images used are encyclopedic and the captions are appropriate. The licensing of the images themselves, there are some questions about.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for seven days for some minor prose issues to be addressed, and for the image licensing issues to be addressed. Peacemaker67~~ All done, passing. (crack... thump) 09:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1a: The Serbo-Croatian name of the organisation was always Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije, the correct translation of which is "League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia", and not at all "Young Communist League of Yugoslavia". I see that the article on SKOJ starts with that name, but it's someone's mistake. I'll make changes per your other suggestions.

Re 6a:

The 1967 book was published in Yugoslavia and it explains how and when the photo was made. It calls it "the well-known portrait of Marija [Bursać]", so apparently it was published sometime before 1967. There is no evidence that it was published in 1939, but I don't see what it has to do with omitting Yugoslavia from the license. The photo was transferred to Commons and tagged by an admin (I suppose they know about licensing). Your claim that the Yugoslavia license should be removed and the B-H one left looks rather confused.
- Actually, now I have read the text in those tags, and now I see what you meant by referring to those dates. Initially I thought it very strange to remove Yugoslavia and leave B-H, since the photo was surely first published in SFR Yugoslavia (which B-H was just a part of). Sorry for the confusion. Vladimir (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the Znaci gallery page, it says that all the documents that are published there are in the public domain. These WW2 photos come from the Museum of Yugoslav History, a part of which was formerly known as the Museum of Revolution (Muzej Revolucije). Some of the museum's photos came to Commons via USHMM, rather than Znaci. See for example PD tag on File:Kosta Pećanac, 20 October 1941.jpg.
I don't see why Croatia would have to be mentioned in that license. According to this, all Yugoslavia stamps issued before 1991 are PD. Vladimir (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: would you mind have a quick look at the images used in this article and provide a second opinion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marija_Bursać.jpg: without a known earlier publication we can't use the Yugoslavia tag - and we don't need it, as the Bosnia tag is sufficient to demonstrate its PD status in the US (PD in Bosnia before 1996). But if we can't prove 1939 publication that note should be removed from the URAA tag.
File:Žetva_u_Saničkoj_dolini_(1942).jpg: the website doesn't specify in what country the image is PD - we need to demonstrate that it is public domain in at least the US. Without a known publication date we can't do that because we don't know if it was PD at the URAA date. The same problem aplies to File:Partizanke_na_Dinari_(1943).jpg.
File:Marija_Bursać_1984_Yugoslavia_stamp.jpg: government works from Yugoslavia are now governed by the laws of all of its successor states. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I think I addressed the prose issues. Fixed File:Marija Bursać.jpg and File:Marija Bursać 1984 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg; tagged the latter with Gov templates for those Yugoslav republics that have them. Vladimir (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose all good now. Given Nikki's opinion is the same as mine regarding the lack of publication date on the other two images, they will have to go. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced them. Vladimir (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And those licences are good. Well done, passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker67! Vladimir (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]