Talk:Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Petrova Gora monument.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this article on. Thanks for bringing it to GA. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this review, Rollinginhisgrave. I'll get to addressing everything once the initial comments are finalized. joeyquism (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry I've stepped away before completing the initial comments, I'll pick it back up in 12 hours or so. It was unexpectedly affecting. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Totally understandable; the background behind the monument is quite heavy, to say the least. If you ever feel that you need more time in general, though, feel free to let me know. joeyquism (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Making my way through a bit slowly but steadily. I've been completing copyedits as I go, removing things too small to list here. Please review these changes to make sure you are happy with them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits, Rollinginhisgrave; I really appreciate it. Looking forward to the full review, and apologies for not taking it piecewise as you have been listing things. I've been meaning to take a break and I'm slowly weaning off the contributions + I've been swamped by a bunch of people taking on my remaining GANs in addition to FAC. Once everything's all here, I'll address it in full, if that's okay with you. joeyquism (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's okay of course. Hopefully it'll be finished up in the next two days and then when you are more available you can have a go at addressing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Finishing up. You've done an exceptional job on this article, the only thing left I'd like to see address is the The facilities were built so that they would not interfere..., but even with it I think the criteria is met. Thankyou for your work on this. I hope to see you back on Wikipedia soon, and if you ever want a page reviewed, just drop it on my talk page and I'll get right on it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

I will be adding comments as I go.

Finished prose review for now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave: I've responded to some of your comments above; I should get back to it soon enough. Apologies for the pushback on some of them; a few of your comments are written rather tersely to where I'm not sure what you want me to address. On others, I did not feel that they were reason for concern. I am sensing a difference in stylistic taste here, which of course is okay - new eyes are always welcome, and I do not hold anything you've written against you; in fact, I thank you very much for your scrutiny, as it shows me that you care about the quality of this article as much as I do. Just felt like I should clarify that here to be transparent and quash any suspicions of animosity. joeyquism (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't apologise for pushing back, I think articles are worse served if reviewer text is added just to avoid risking a fail. I won't respond to your comments until you've finished responding to avoid edit conflicts and so we can discuss trends in their entirety. That being said, I only have a few of your responses that I want to comment on, I agree with your reasoning for most. I do care about this article. It makes me really glad that you've put the time in to get it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and understanding. I plan on getting to the rest over the weekend; in the meantime, please don't hesitate to respond to my existing comments or move further on in the review (e.g. spot check, image review, copyvio, etc.) if you wish. I'll keep a close eye on this page in my watchlist and do my best to avoid edit conflicts - I doubt that we're in close enough time zones to warrant such worries, but of course anything can happen. Looking forward to reading your comments and seeing the rest of your review! joeyquism (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• Restoration attempts have been largely unsuccessful, leaving the monument with several of its steel panels missing and a decaying concrete structure. Efforts by multiple groups, including government coalitions and a state-owned construction company, have seen limited success, with only partial restorations completed. The monument presently remains in an advanced state of disrepair. these sentences can be merged to avoid redundancy.

• I've removed the last sentence, as I feel like it's rather redundant

The claim that a state-owner construction company tried to restore it needs to be removed after spot check. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Woops. I meant that I've removed the second sentence Efforts by multiple groups, including government coalitions and a state-owned construction company, have seen limited success, with only partial restorations completed. Apologies for this oversight; it was late when I responded. joeyquism (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• The first massacres targeted date these, as later dates are given.

• Dated to early 1941.

• harsh retaliation from Ustaše forces, which manifested in redundant if executions are attributed to Ustaše forces.

• I'm not sure what you mean by redundancy here. I think it's fair to note which party is retaliating; however, if you are referring to something else, please let me know.

There's only two parties involved, the Ustaše and ethnic Serbs. If someone is retaliating against the Serbs after they do something, saying it was the Ustaše who did it is redundant. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough; removed "from Ustaše forces". joeyquism (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• over 4,000 combined deaths is it important to note these deaths as "combined"?

• There's a footnote that should supplement the notion of "combined deaths" in the sentence. The deaths occurred in multiple towns across Banija - 1,100 in Banski Grabovac, 800 in Vlahović, and 2,394 in Glina.

• brutal unnecessary editorialising, the brutality is apparent from the deathtoll.

• Removed.

• However, the arrival of communist Yugoslav Partisan resistance units stifled the worries of the people I am worried about this section of the article. It is very affecting, but doesn't appear neutral. I don't think it would take much to allay my worries, so I won't comment further until they're addressed.

• I don't know - it reads rather neutrally to me. I get that as a member of the resistance, Goldstein was probably understandably biased against the Ustaše, but if he, as someone who experienced the events personally, says that the arrival of those Partisan groups quelled feelings of fear and strengthened the sentiments for rebellion among the people, then I can only take that as fact and have reported it as such. I guess I can understand an argument against how it's written stylistically, which I could see being interpreted as an idealized version of events, but I'm just taking from the source here.

I might be jaded, but references to "the people" are rarely neutral, especially given the political context of the memorial. Rereading the background section makes me worried for tone, but not confident enough to stop this from getting to GA off that basis. I will note my concern: this is a monument by a Communist state commemorating "the people"'s role in revolution/rebellion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit that I did not think about it like that when I was writing it. This is a good line of reasoning and I definitely agree with you that within the context of Communist states, "the people" is more charged than in other contexts. I'll deliberate about changing it to "the Serbs" or something akin to that, but for now I think that "the people" should suffice. joeyquism (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• The killings at Ivanović Jarak had proven... sentence confusing tense

• Not sure which parts you're referring to here; sorry for my confusion. I assume you meant "for the uprising in Kordun, led by Partisan groups", which did read strangely to me upon second glance. I've since broken it into two sentences.

• and by 8–10 August major ethnic cleansing operations Are sources reporting different dates for the ethnic cleansings ending?

• Yes. Biondich says that "The 'cleansing operation' lasted until 8 August", while Goldstein reports that a decree for the ending of ethnic cleansings was issued on the 9th (the 10th was a mistake on my part - that was just when the decree was circulated by newspapers). I've added a footnote.

• several encounters between Partisan rebels less euphemistic language

• I don't believe that "encounters" is euphemistic; Merriam Webster includes a definition for the word as "a meeting between hostile factions or persons; a sudden, often violent clash".

This is helpful thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• In early August, several encounters between Partisan rebels and the Ustaše occurred around the city of Slunj, and by 8–10 August major ethnic cleansing operations had ceased in much of Croatia. this seems to attribute the end of the ethnic cleansing to these "encounters", is this true? Even though they're punishing dissent everywhere else?

• That's how I interpreted the sources. The following excerpts are a bit long, so apologies for that.

The Biondich source states "The commander of the First Croatian Gendarmerie Regiment provided a forthright account of the July 1941 killings in his district. Following the sabotage on 27 July 1941 of the railway tracks in Vojnić district, which the gendarmerie attributed to local communists, Ustaša forces launched a 'cleansing' operation: 'This provoked a panic among the Serb population.' The Ustaša militia pillaged and killed indiscriminately and openly, including the elderly and children. The 'cleansing operation' lasted until 8 August, following which the gendarmerie commandant reported: 'Like the gendarmes in general, I was completely helpless. Everything was done against our knowledge with great distrust toward us.' Much of the local population was still in disbelief, 'because many [Serbs] were cleansed, for whom it is known that they committed no harm against Croats'."

The Goldstein source states "The first skirmish between the rebels and the Ustasha was on August 3 in Zečev Varoš, in the immediate vicinity of Slunj. The Ustasha fled in the face of an assault by a poorly armed mass of peasants. From that moment the uprising in the district of Slunj spread relatively quickly, which I consider proof that the cleansings were the main impetus for the spread of the rebellion and not the other way around. According to reports at the conference of September 19 and 20, of 688 armed Partisan fighters throughout Kordun, there were 190 in the first district (around Petrova Gora), 138 in the second district (the central portion of Kordun, the wartime district of Veljun), 46 in the fourth district (the southernmost part of Kordun), while the third district (Slunj) had 314, by far the most. The numbers speak for themselves: in the fourth district, where there had been relatively few cleansings, there were also far fewer Partisans, among whom 27 (about 59 percent) were communists; in the third district, which was the hardest hit by the Ustasha cleansing operations, there were far more Partisans with a far lower share of communists (a total of 30, or about 9.5 percent)."

I interpreted these two excerpt as generally saying that the resistance scared off the Ustaše to some extent. I'm mostly relying on the quote from the gendarmerie commandant from the Biondich source and the "Ustasha fled" quote along with the last few sentences from the Goldstein source. If my angle seems off to you - in which case, I would very much like to know your interpretation so that I can build upon my perspective - please let me know so that I may fix it.

I actually don't think the first source is referring to the rebellion at all. The second source says the rebellion started on August 3, and then the uprising spread quickly. We know the cleansings stop on August 8-9. But it's synth to link the two. It's also troubled by the second source appears to say this is a controversial area among historians. I wouldn't include this information until a review of the academic literature is performed, and its established a consensus of historians believe the cleansings stopped because of the rebellion. This might be easy to find, I'm just concerned about what's in the article now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've worked it so that the rebellion and the cessation of ethnic cleansings are no longer linked, at least not as explicitly as before:

Rebellion efforts were led by Partisan groups from both Kordun and Banija under Vasilj Gaćeša and Ivan Rukavina, and in early August, several encounters between the Partisans and the Ustaše occurred around the city of Slunj. By 8 or 9 August major ethnic cleansing operations had ceased in much of Croatia; however, murders continued under the direction of Ante Pavelić and Slavko Kvaternik, particularly in regions that had previously been the sites of rebellion, including Petrova Gora.

Hopefully this is a good enough compromise. I must confess that I'm getting gradually more and more wikibonked (hence my desire for an extended break after this and my current FAC nomination are wrapped up), so my level of effort is definitely on the decline. However, I do very much care about this article and want to see it recognized for its accuracy, so I'm working as hard as I can with the energy I have left. joeyquism (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Breaks my heart seeing an editor who's made the contributions you have getting burnt out. I'm sorry for contributing to that in any way. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You are in no way responsible for my burnout - much of it is just because I've been overwhelmed with IRL things. If anything, you've made me feel more certain about ensuring my break is only temporary; in other words, editors like yourself give me a good reason to come back. joeyquism (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• had been ravaged the writing is so literary. I'm not listing all the issues it's creating with neutrality but I hope you can see the need for a rewrite.

• I'm not sure if there's much of an NPOV issue as you may be thinking. "Ravaged" is a fair description in my opinion; those communities were indeed massacred by the Ustaše and their population numbers were curbed significantly. Neutrality would be violated if I attached some emotion to it, like "sadly ravaged" or if "ravaged" was somehow an opinion by the author (I will concede that there aren't any figures given for the scale of loss in these massacres, but the notion of genocide and large-scale killing should be enough proof of devastation). Additionally, several milhist GAs and FAs characterize such events as having "ravaged" populations and areas (see John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter, Fatimid conquest of Egypt, and World War II - I will admit that the latter is an old GA, but I'm going to AGF that the prose holds).

The FA links are helpful here, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• most brutal operations" I guess they were killed? Tortured?

• Reduced to just "killed"

• marking the symbolic end of World War II why is this symbolic?

• "Symbolic" as in, the war had not been declared over but the losing side had no way of coming back. This is how the attributed source describes it, and I feel as if it would be disingenuous to remove "symbolic" here as it's not official. In other words, a "de facto victory".

Symbolic sounds a bit strange, if another source could support this I think "effective end" would be better. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages 272 and 464 of Jomo Tomasevich's War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration give 8 May 1945 as the end date for the fascist regime in Croatia, though it doesn't explicitly label the capture of Zagreb as being the final nail in the coffin. I would be a bit more comfortable removing "symbolic" altogether if this source were to be used, but I'd like to get your thoughts on this before I proceed. joeyquism (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for creating so much work for you here, I think this falls more into preferences than WP:GACR. Happy to leave it here with my preference noted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• , moving beyond the role of a traditional monument redundant

• Removed.

• monument's adaptability ?

• Changed to "The jury focused on selecting a design that balanced architectural, sculptural, and urbanistic elements"

• architectural, sculptural, and urbanistic integrity simpler wording

• Fixed above.

• with respect to its redundant

• May need some more clarification here.

The jury focused on selecting a design that balanced architectural, sculptural, and urbanistic elements, and considered each submission's with respect to its relationship with the surrounding environment. I think these say the same thing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Revised. joeyquism (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Several solutions that met this criteria were added to a shortlist, with redundant

• And here.

This is just how competitions work. Entries are shortlisted, winners are chosen. We don't need to spell out an unremarkable process. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Another good point. Removed. joeyquism (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Stevan Luketić [hr] and architect Ivan Vitić were the recipients of the third-place prize of 10,000 dinars, while works by Marija Ujević and Hrvoje Devide, Drago Kapun, and Šime Vulas [hr] were bought for 7,000 dinars each. UNDUE

• Not sure what you mean by this either. This is just a single sentence that serves to further contextualize the competition; I don't think UNDUE applies here.

It does contextualize, but in too much detail. It is describing the winners of third place and lower, and their prize money, in one of multiple competitions to design the monument. Have a read of the detail the only FA monument goes into over design: Freedom Monument#Construction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet another good point. Removed that sentence. joeyquism (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• He thought that the spiral architecture was not well-suited to the historical and environmental context of Petrova Gora, and suggested that the design would be more appropriate for an urban setting rw for concision
• all activities related to redundant

• @Rollinginhisgrave: Sorry for taking a while to get back to you here; I've busy packing for an upcoming move, though I've found the time to address a few more of your comments - I should be able to get to finishing up the rest in the next couple of days (hopefully). I've removed this phrase.

• additional content ?

• Removed. There isn't much elaboration on what "additional content" they needed other than the scenic area.

• was recognized for its conceptual content strange wording

• Revised to just "concept".

• that emphasized verticality is height okay here?

• "Height" seems reductive and inaccurate - height is quantitative; it's a measure of how tall a building or structure is from its base to its top. Verticality is more qualitative and refers to the perception or emphasis of vertical lines and elements in a building's design

It's jargon though. Merriam Webster doesn't have a definition, neither does Google. Having a quick look, I can't even see the definition you provide being supported anywhere. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Revised. joeyquism (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• condensing the monument's volume making it smaller?

• Also a bit too reductive for my taste, sorry

What do you think is lost? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It just felt too simplistic to me at the time I was writing my initial response, though I've come around to it. I've revised. joeyquism (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• to create a composition that was both dynamic and dramatic stuff like this appears a bit weasely and is present throughout.

• Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "weasely" here - I don't think this violates MOS:WEASEL. It seems rather straightforward to me, although I could very well be missing something that you're seeing. Perhaps adding "aiming" before "to" here could be a simple way to address this?

• Bakić developed the design into a cylindrical form -> made the design cylindrical

• Revised to "designed a cylinder"

• while also ensuring that the external structure reflected the internal sculptural elements. I don't understand this.

• In reading it back to myself again, I also find that I don't understand what I meant here. The original Croatian source reads:

Iz skulptorskih razloga bilo mu je važno da vanjski plašt dobije svoj odgovarajući negativ iznutra, tj. da skulptura živi i izvana i iznutra.

This should roughly translate to "For sculptural reasons, it was important to him that the outer shell received its appropriate negative from within, i.e., that the sculpture lived both outside and inside." Maybe this is more clear in Croatian than it is when machine-translated in English. Either way, I can't seem to extrapolate anything coherent from this; perhaps you may be able to? If not, I'll likely just remove it from the prose.

• with Šerbetić focusing on preserving Bakić's artistic vision while ensuring the design met functional standards too much detail, can cut

• Fair enough. Cut.

• with its galleries arranged to create unique spaces that varied in their layout and purpose unique a bit weasley, can be rewritten for concision.

• Removed unique; revised to "with its galleries acting as multipurpose spaces"

• utilitarian -> functional?

• Utilitarian is a bit too specific; revised to functional.

• The facilities were built so that they would not interfere with the monument's visual dominance; the landscape architecture was designed to complement the monument without detracting from its appearance, and the reception spaces, which included restaurants, visitor centers, shops, and restrooms, were built away from the site to preserve the structure's prominence. The public square, situated near the bus stop, was constructed lower than the monument for similar reasons. repeating itself. Can be a lot more concise.

• I'll get to this later. Agreed re: repetition.

• The interior of these buildings was redundant

• Removed.

• Low lighting was used to ensure everything remained visually subordinate to the monument, while horticultural elements were designed to highlight the existing forest with minimal forms so much written about how the design highlights the monument. Summarise per above. I don't know what minimal forms are.

• Removed "minimal forms". Will address later.

• Its interior was to house a reading room, library, and administrative offices for Memorial Park Petrova Gora move to discussion about planning, or specify that it was actually built this way.

• A bit confused by what you're asking here, sorry.

• with a midway stop at a tomb marked by a thick granite slab. Can you elaborate on this tomb? Unless it's just an old tomb that happens to be on the route.

• There isn't enough detail on this tomb to elaborate on its purpose - all it says is that "Halfway there is a tomb; a thick granite slab with an opening."

• Initially planned to be made of concrete, the monument was made from stainless steel metal sheets supported by a steel frame is that odds with leaving the monument with several of its steel panels missing and a decaying concrete structure ?

• Good catch. I'll address this later; there seems to be some conflict between my sources. I could throw in "entirely" after "made" in the first sentence, though I'm not sure if that would be true to the cited source.

• where historical documents and permanent displays would be exhibited does would be mean were here, or was it just planned?

• From what I know, this monument was seldom utilized for anything; my assumption is that this was simply planned. I didn't want to commit an original research or synth violation, so the wording is a bit intentionally vague here. I'll see if I can find anything from the sources that is more clear about their intentions.

• On the top of the monument, an observation deck from where visitors of the complex could view the landscapes of Petrova Gora. and largely due to its observation deck that offered expansive views of the landscape of Petrova Gora. dupe

• Revised the second sentence just to "largely due to its observation deck"

• construction costs alone excluding materials?

• The source says " In 1981, when the monument was finally completed after ten years of construction, the construction costs totaled 34 billion dinars. The formwork made of premium stainless steel ordered from Sweden cost an additional 31 billion."

• the monument found itself in an occupied part less idiomatic

• Revised to "the monument, which was located in an occupied part of the country, was repurposed"

• platoon, and also served missing article, although the sentence reads a bit awkwardly

• Changed to a semicolon separated list: The interior was converted into a base that housed a signal corps, a military police company, and an air defense platoon; a training center; and a storage facility for ammunition, weapons, and explosives.

• an outpatient department, an operating room, a sterilization area, and a plaster room too much detail

• Reduced to just operating room, as that's probably the most important part of a hospital in general.

• including the museum, ethnographic collections, exhibition spaces, library, and the unfinished multimedia hall, was there anything that wasn't affected? If not, we already know what the contents are and don't need them listed again.

• Fair point; removed.

• of buildings, inventory, books, museum exhibits, and archival materials could be redundant, you decide.

• I'll opt to keep including this.

• leaving everything, including the original buildings of the Partisan hospital, the reception center, protected natural areas, and the monument itself, in a state of decay. much more concise (i.e. leaving all of the complex)

• Done.

• , leading to further deterioration redundant (very WP:POSA)

• Removed.

• (Croatian: Što, Kako i za Koga?, is the Croatian name common in English language writings?

• Not to my knowledge, no. I've removed it.

• and potential social functions could you elaborate here what you mean by this?

• The most I could find on what this means is from Zajović's article, which states that "WHW questions the role of monuments to the National Liberation War in today's socio-political context."

• An open call for conceptual proposals What about the proposals made them conceptual?

• I think this is just some editorializing on my part, sorry. Removed "conceptual".

• inviting anyone interested in anti-fascist monuments and the spaces they occupy unnecessary detail, at best can be heavily summarised.

• Removed this.

• a program a program?
• , both in the past and future redundant}}

• Removed.

• Opening remarks were given by Vesna Vuković, the project curator, and Miloš Kresojević, a former employee of the Memorial Park Petrova Gora, with architect Iva Marčetić guiding attendees through the proposals. unnecessary detail.

• Removed.

• Other attempts at renovating the monument have gone mostly unfulfilled This is said as if the ones described before have gone fulfilled. Sounds like they just had a tour and a discussion.

• Removed "Other", as the tour and discussion aren't necessarily indicative of an attempt to renovate, in my opinion.

• the decision to film at the site -> which
• met with backlash from -> criticised by

• This sentence has been revised according to the spot check.

• can be seen on featured? was used on?

• Revised to "is featured on"

Suggestions

• the monument was repurposed by the Yugoslav People's Army repurposed sounds euphemistic here.
• 34 billion dinars use template:inflation.

• The Yugoslav dinar does not exist anymore; I'm not sure if a conversion is possible with the data used by the template, though I can check later.

• Following its opening, unsure if this is needed given it's the first words under the header "Post-dedication"

• Removed.

• of the WHW's "Yesterday, Tomorrow" should "the" be included?

• Removed; does not feel appropriate.

• part of the interior of the Partisan hospital were refurbished attribute date

• Dated to 2009 for the coalition agreement; this should give some context for when the renovations were done. There's not really a direct mention of when exactly these were executed in the sources.

References

No issues that I can see.

Spot check:

1) However, new demands from the executive committee brought challenges, particularly concerning the existing structure at the top of Veliki Petrovac, which could not be demolished until the monument was completed. The need for additional content such as a scenic area also necessitated adjustments to the original solution. N "the already existing facility at the top of Veliki Petrovac... [which] could not be demolished until the construction of the memorial object was completed." Way too close. I don't see the scenic area bit, could you give me the blockquote in Croatian?

I've rephrased it so that it does not violate WP:CLOP - let me know if this is good for you. As for the quote in Croatian:

Arhitekta Igora Toša je u razdoblju od 1973. do 1974. godine investitor pozvao na pripreme za izgradnju projekta kako bi se što prije uočili problemi vezani uz realizaciju objekta prema izabranom rješenju. Došlo se do novih spoznaja te su iskristalizirane nove želje Izvršnog odbora u smislu dodavanja objektu još nekih uporabnih funkcija, kao što su scenski prostori i slično.

This should translate roughly to "Architect Igor Toš invited the investor during the period from 1973 to 1974 to prepare for the construction project in order to promptly identify issues related to the implementation of the object according to the selected solution. New insights were gained, and new desires of the Executive Committee crystallized regarding the addition of additional functional spaces, such as scenic spaces, and similar." I'm not Croatian nor do I speak the language (Russian has a few cognates in Croatian here and there but not enough for me to fully understand), so I'm relying mostly on machines.

2) The monument was officially intended to commemorate the Serb and Partisan rebels of Kordun and Banija, as well as a hospital that had been built on Petrova Gora by Partisan groups in October 1941. Y

3) The memorial complex was officially dedicated by Yugoslav politician Jure Bilić on 4 October 1981, marking the 40th anniversary of the uprising and the establishment of the first Partisan hospital at Petrova Gora, and the first anniversary of Josip Broz Tito's visit to Petrova Gora. Y

4) The state-owned company Odašiljači i veze expressed interest in the restoration of the monument; however, their interest was purely functional, with the company only opting to install a large repeater on the monument's roof and sealing off two rooms with high voltage warning signs on the doors. N doesn't say the company was interested in restoring the monument.

Changed to The state-owned company Odašiljači i veze expressed interest in working on the monument. The translated source (at least for me) states that "The only one that showed serious interest in this impressive building during that period, but solely because of its own needs, was the state-owned company Odašiljači i veze" - I think that "working on the monument" should fit in this case.

5) In August 2019, it was reported that the monument would be used as a filming location for the 2021 German Netflix production Tribes of Europa and was set to be under lease until the following year; the decision to film at the site was met with backlash from Bakić's granddaughters. N article bodies only state they were upset they weren't informed of filming, nothing about whether they were upset at the filming.

Changed to Bakić's granddaughters expressed disappointment about having not been informed of the decision to film at the site - I'm not crazy about this rephrasing, even though it may be more accurate. If any better way of phrasing it comes to mind, please let me know.

Everything else:

• Stable Y
• Images Y
• Stable Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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.