Talk:Croatia

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Section "Education" should be updated.

CHANGE THIS:

as well as scientists, such as Franciscus Patricius, Nikola Nalješković, Nikola Vitov Gučetić, Josip Franjo Domin, Marino Ghetaldi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Supek, Ivan Đikić, Miroslav Radman and Marin Soljačić.

INTO THIS:

as well as scientists, such as Franciscus Patricius, Nikola Nalješković, Nikola Vitov Gučetić, Josip Franjo Domin, Marino Ghetaldi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Supek, Ivan Đikić, Miroslav Radman, Marin Soljačić and Davor Solter. DoctaDicta (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Looking at Solter's article, I don't see a clear tie to Croatia. Based on the timeline, he emigrated from Yugoslavia. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, are you kidding me. Of course he emigrated from Yugoslavia, when Croatia was part of Yugoslavia till 1990. The man is clearly Croatian scientist! —VelikiMeshtar (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (CET)

Foundation of early medieval Croatia?

Wkipedia is usually based on reliable secondary sources. For resolving the issue when exactly Croatia was established during the middle ages we can use for example the prominent academic book: "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" with author John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., a professor of Balkan and Byzantine history at the University of Michigan. This book was published by the University of Michigan Press in 1991. As prof. Fine has stated there: Thought the Byzantines had lost control of most of the Balkans in the seventh century, the Slavs had formed no states as yet. They continued to live in small tribal units, independent of one another, etc. see: p. 65. The conclusion is clear: during the 7th century there were no Slavic state formations on the Balkans. Also check please: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). The source for Heraclius is not valid for many reasons. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In the article the dating is discussed in the section "Middle Ages", where it is stated that the claim about 7th century establishment is disputed. To put it as a fact in the infobox is therefore completely undue. De Administrando Imperio is not a WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I followed example from article of Serbia, (Principality of Serbia (early medieval) is also based on De Administrando Imperio and c. 780. Mikola22 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Apart from that, I did remove a 7th century claim from the Serbia article, too. As for the 780 claim, that is a bit different, since it seems to be sourced to secondary sources. In the Serbia article it is sourced to Sima M. Ćirković (which I cannot read, since I do not know the language). In the Principality of Serbia (early medieval) article, the same information is sourced to Đorđe Strizović (which I also cannot read) and to Samardžić & Duškov (eds.), where Miloš Blagojević explicitly mentions "around the year 780". --T*U (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Christians

Do you people agree to put all Christians under one total percentage, as seen on Serbia's infobox? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

minor NOTES edit

In the notes it states:

"The writing system of Croatia is legally protected by federal law. Efforts to recognise minority scripts, pursuant to international law, on a local level, has been met with protests."

It cannot be protected by federal law as there is no federal law. Croatia is not a federation, but a unitary republic.

93.138.161.134 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured article

@OyMosby:@Mikola22:@Tezwoo:@SerVasi:@Tuvixer:@Joy:@United Union:@Silverije:@Jesuislafete:@GregorB:@DerTorx:@Koreanovsky:@Daß Wölf:@Pjesnik21:

Hi, I am inviting you to work together on this article. It would be a great pleasure to work together and shift this already good article to the featured article. Each of you can help by updating information, adding independent, reliable sources, improving the neutral point of view, changing the structure of sentences to fit the encyclopedia, improving grammar, adding better images and so on. If someone uses Grammarly Premium, it would be great to use it to fix grammar. You are all experienced Wikipedia editors, and I believe that together we could improve this article in less than a week to make it a featured article by following criteria. That is just a request, I do not want to force anyone to participate, but I believe that together we are more efficient and can significantly improve the article quality that represents our country. Thank you. --Thebeon (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea, of course, even if my hunch is that this particular FA will prove to be very hard to do - but it doesn't matter really, let's call it an improvement drive if you will, and see where it takes us. I'd consider a timeline significantly longer than a couple of weeks, though.

I remember back in the day I did (or considered doing?) some work on updating various stats in the article, but it turned out to be larger effort than I expected. I might do some update/referencing work, currently I don't have time/mental resources for more than that. The article is on my watchlist now.

Also: pinging Tomobe03. GregorB (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh... this was a long time ago. I vaguely remember taking it through GAR, but it was quite a while ago. Not making any promises, but what needs be done? (I have also watchlisted the article now.) --Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with this article is outdated information. It is really hard to find reliable sources for some statements, some of which are from 2010 or earlier. There are statistical yearbooks, although they do not contain all the information needed for updating. Secondly, I'm trying to improve the grammar, even though I am not very good at English, but Grammarly helps a lot. I also requested a peer review for this article, as you can see at the top of the talk page, but nobody has responded since. The point is that we work more systematically and at least have a long-term goal of making it FA. --Thebeon (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviews are normally glacially slow IIRC - I wouldn't hold my breath for those. Perhaps you should make a bulleted list here in talk listing major issues first, adding minor issues as updates progress. That way, others could pitch in and strike out what's done and list what's missing/outdated. As regards grammar/style/flow of prose, I'd strongly suggest making a request for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ indicating intention of submitting the article to FAR. There is a (about) month-long wait, so a request should be posted when uptade is reasonably near complete - i.e. not yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the major issue is outdated information. I marked, a bit lazily, every section that has outdated information to be updated. Our statistical information is scattered across the internet and thus very difficult to update most of the content. It would be great if we have all the statistics from 2020, but, some, the Croatian Bureau of Statistics did not update for years. This year should be the National Census, but as it usually goes in Croatia, we will wait for 2-3 years for most of the statistics to be published. Honestly, except outdated content, and grammar, I don't know what should be improved, so it meets criteria to become FA. That is why I need more of us to help me detect more issues. --Thebeon (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it is justified to add tags if there are no actionable complaints, or if you are unsure if any issues exist regarding updates.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, among all FAs on countries, the country most similar to Croatia is Bulgaria. It's also a fairly recent one (Oct 2018), so it might serve as a yardstick. I suppose its FA nom is worth taking a look at too. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It definitely has more citations, so that should also be a prirority. But the quality of the citations is more important, only independent, reliable sources should be used, and for some sensitive topics, third-party sources. --Thebeon (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Images are also of better quality and more attractive in Bulgaria article. Many images on Croatia article are dark, blurry, some are irrelevant to the sections. --Thebeon (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

At least 50 more new, reliable sources should be added to the article. There is some puffery in the article, and many sentences need to be more concise. Thebeon (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are basically all the new information needed for updating the article. This could be also used as a supplement, although it has older information. --Thebeon (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It'd be great to have the 2020 edition of the Statistical Yearbook, I checked days ago and it's still not out, but I suppose it should be published soon, release date is normally in December. Statistical Information looks very good too, that's also an option. GregorB (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why the last Statistical Yearbook is from 2018. That means it has information from 2017, or in some cases, earlier. There is no Statistical Yearbook from 2019, let alone 2020. Maybe they skipped 2019. Hope they will release 2020 soon. --Thebeon (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)