Jump to content

Talk:Croatian Peasant Party during World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomobe03 (talk | contribs) at 10:10, 12 April 2021 (→Notes on copyedit: wl envoy names who have wiki articles for reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Buidhe, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 April 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Croatian Peasant Party during World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

{{{overcom}}}|}}

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Comments

Lead section

  • The link to armed resistance doesn’t lead where you would expect it to.
I think it simply needs to be clearer at this point in the text that the armed resistance were the Partisans. AM
Reworded - please check again. In the process, I linked Yugoslav Partisans too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done AM
Yugoslav Partisans have been linked already pe above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Background

2 Invasion of Yugoslavia

Understood, but it's only fair to readers that the links go where they might expect them to, so I would make it clearer in the text that the countries are not the current states. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This exact same formula is used in the FA. I feel adding "Kingdom" in front of each link will not be helpful at all and will only create clutter. Then again, if you insist...--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can leave it be. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who pulled Yugoslavia out of the Tripartite Pact – consider replacing ‘pulled out’ e.g. with ‘and Yugoslavia withdrew from the Tripartite Pact’ (which is less idiomatic).
  • Amend to include police to ‘to include the police’. (I write in British English, so please ignore this if you don’t.)
  • Link Axis powers in the image caption.
  • Who was Slavko Kvaternik?
    • He was a former Austro-Hungarian Army officer, and obviously was a supporter of Ustaše (later a government minister etc.). He had no formal position at the time of the declaration, so it is hard to pin a specific short label. I added a bit on his being a former army officer, but I'm unsure this helps at all. Any suggestion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Slavko Kvaternik, a founding member of Ustaše,'? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scanned the entire Tomasevich, Calic and The Oxford Handbook of European History and all I could get from them was that he was the most prominent member of the movement and leader of the movement in the country (Yugoslavia or Croatia depending on point of view, but makes no difference for this purpose). The wiki article on him indeed says he was a founding member (and it is quite possible he was one), but offers no sources to back the claim up and Tomasevich does not confirm it. Instead I wrote what he says about Kvaternik - that he was the leader of the Ustaše movement in the country (retaining the potentially ambiguous formulation "the country") and I have expanded the corresponding reference page range to encompass pages 48 and 53 where those claims exist. I'll have a look at other sources too and include the founding info if I find it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what's there now is fine, anything else would be good too, but it's perhaps not essential to include it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the text is fine. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 Fracturing of the party

4 Scheme to seize power

  • Amend the link to Adriatic coast to only link ‘Adriatic’.
  • Amend Treaties of Rome to ‘1941 Treaties of Rome’.
  • Who was Josip Torbar?
    • At this point, he fairly irrelevant and could be dropped from the article (just a HSS member and a Košutić's associate). On the other hand, he much later became the president of the HSS, so .... I don't know what to do. Suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop him, as according to this from the Croatian Wikipedia, it seems that it was his son who became president. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't find it. AM
My bad. AM
 Partly done AM
No, I can't see your clarification. AM
Found. AM

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 Aftermath

  • Amend of People's Front of Yugoslavia to ‘of the People's Front of Yugoslavia'.
  • Who was Stjepan Pezelj?
  • allowed to operate - ‘allowed to coexist’ sounds better imo.
  • Amend eleven to ‘11’ (as ‘28 ‘ occurs earlier).
  • only six of the eleven - ‘only six of them’.
  • and Šubašić suffered a stroke needs to be preceded by a comma or a colon to help the sentence make better sense.
  • Marija Radić's bookshop was bombed – any more details available (the perpetrators, whether bombed from above or destroyed with explosives inside)?
    • Sorry I missed this one. The source just says "bombed". I assume it was an explosive device and not an aircraft bomb since it was peacetime and the centre of Zagreb, but no info on perpetrators is available (likely nobody investigated given circumstances) and no specific info if the explosion occurred outside or inside or on the exact type of the bomb. Any suggestions how to proceed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, was looking at a wrong Radelić article. The one referred to inline says an "explosive device or a bomb" exploded in front of the bookshop. An investigation was started but produced no results except that the police interviewed the editor of the newspaper. I edited the passage to reflect the source more closely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7 References

  • The links to Calic and Vuksic should be removed, as they provide little extra information.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I meant the links to the Google Books, which have no previews. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok - I assumed the url is always included. Removed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I'm placing the article on hold until 25 April to allow time for you to address the comments in the review. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thorough review. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns above. I have requested clarifications on others, so I'll resume take this up again when I get more feedback. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still some issues to address, thanks for your work so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more work. If I'm not missing anything, I think the description of Kvaternik and Radić bookshop bombing remain to be resolved. Please correct me if I'm overlooking something.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good

Passing the article now, great work. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time taken to reveiw this article. I believe its quality has improved as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on copyedit

  • The lead briefly discusses the prewar situation of the party, so this should be covered in the body as well. Equally, you should introduce what HSS is, its paramilitaries and political situation, rather than introduce them after bringing up the 1941 coup.
  • In the second paragraph of "Invasion of Yugoslavia", it was left unclear if Axis powers planned to annex parts of Yugoslavia or all of it.
  • Didn't Mussolini want to directly annex parts of Yugoslavia for himself? I believe that's accurate, so I rewrote the sentence to be more direct.
  • Foreign language terms, I would avoid these unless it's the direct subject of the article. Instead, "Independent State of Croatia (NDH)" is fine as the reader will know it's a foreign language acronym.
  • "even though it was made under duress" can you be more specific?
  • Are the HSS paramilitary organizations notable (I expect so)? If so they should be redlinked.
  • How would Croatia benefit from the war as implied "He expected the country to be restored..."? (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to review and copyedit the article. I'll try to implement your suggestions for improvements. As regards your questions above:
  • The initial Axis plan seems to have evolved from a plan regarding annexation: Initially, Hungary and Italy were expected to annex larger parts of the country, but the sources I have consulted don't seem to indicate there were any plans to annex all of Serbia to anyone - so it may be concluded that the plan(s) never called for annexation of all of Yugoslavia, just a really big or a somewhat smaller part of it. The switch came when Hungary declined German offer to annex large parts of what was once the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Then the Germans decided to have NDH instead, reducing Italian territorial expansion in the process.
  • Yes, Mussolini wanted to annex parts of Yugoslavia and did it through annexation of a part of present-day Slovenia adjacent to prewar Italian norteast border areas, and in Dalmatia through the Treaties of Rome (1941).
  • Re Maček acting under duress - if I recall correctly Tomasevich just says that the statement was made under duress and that Maček was confined to his Kupinec village residence. I'll check again and get back though.
    • Update: at p.740, Tomasevich source just says "...the Germans forced Macek to issue this statement of support..."
    • Update 2: at p.52 the same source says that Veesenmayer did the persuading
  • Tomasevich does not specify what was expected as the benefit. I would expect Maček to think Yugoslavia would be expanded at the expense of the aggressor states to reverse losses to Italy stemming from the Treaty of Rapallo (1920). If that were to happen, Banovina of Croatia could reasonably be expected to be enlarged westwards. This actually happened after the defeat of Italy/end of WWII, except Banovina was replaced by the Federal State of Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the claim is referenced to Radelić pp.444-445. There (p.445) Radelić says that Maček believed Yugoslavia would gain territory, and that Croatia would receive a share of such expansion. On the same page, Radelić talks about a memo written by Krnjević and other HSS ministers in the government-in-exile citing expectation of addition of Istria (Italian pre-WWII) to Yugoslavia and Croatia. I have tried to clarify this by explicitly mentioning territorial expansion. Buidhe could you please take another look at this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Peasant Guards seem notable, so I added an ill to them. Civic Guards seem to be an expansion of the Peasant Guards (PG predating the CG by few years), and their wartime actions do not seem that different. Croatian wiki has an article covering both (in a single article). I assume the same arrangement could be expected of the English wiki, so I have determined the Croatian Peasant Guards (literal translation of the PG's formal name Hrvatska seljačka zaštita - common name does not necessarily include "Croatian" bit, but I think the disambiguation might be helpful after all) as the title of a hypothetical article covering both forces where the CG links can be redirected (if they ever come to exist in isolation).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Yes, the PG/CG seem to be notable with reliable sources (for example [1]) specifically on the topic, with the two forces treated as a single topic or very interlinked one, so I presume a single wiki article would be justified for both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re removal of foreign-language terms ahead of foreign-language acronyms: I assumed it was necessary to introduce them as some sort of explanation of how the acronym relates to the relevant English term (if initial letters are different). I'm perfectly happy to see them go if they're not necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe, I have added a brief introduction of the HSS's position and the paramilitaries in the body as suggested (as the first paragraph of the first section). Could you take a look at the paragraph?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ustaše regime still thought the party had significant political power." Does this mean "popular support"? I would expect that being banned and rather quietist would tend to limit the power that the HSS could wield. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since limitations imposed by the Treaties of Rome expired with surrender of Italy" I think this needs more explanation on what these limitations are. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Treaties of Rome made the NDH a de facto Italian protectorate. Two treaties specifically addressed military and economic/political matters requiring the NDH to rely on Italian military assistance and requiring the NDH to subordinate its economic and political interests to Italian ones - at least not to depart from the letter and the spirit establishing the quasi-protectorate. I added few words on this, but wanted to keep it to the minimum since the treties are linked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with minimizing background information on the treaty but I'm struggling to understand how this agreement would require the NDH not to collaborate with the HSS. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The HSS expected to achieve a position of strength allowing it to negotiate with political rulers of Serbia on equal footing after the war." Appears to contradict the lead, "The plotters expected an Allied landing in Dalmatia, which they intended to use to negotiate from the position of strength" A position of strength is the opposite of equal footing in negotiations.
  • "kept in isolation" does this mean "imprisoned"? If not, something like "sidelined or ignored" might read better.
    • Well, according to Tomasevich and Boban [2] two out of three were held in a prison camp: (1) Tomo Jančiković arrived (October 1943) in Bari where he was interrogated by the British; After he wrote to Knjević (after landing in Bari) to inform him of his arrival he was held by the British in a prison camp and prevented from going to Cairo or London to see Krnjević or even to write to him or receive letters from Krnjević. There was some back-and-forth involving the British Foreign Office, Yugoslav government in exile, HSS representatives in London and Cairo, Yugoslav Partisans and the SOE whether to allow him to travel or not, but he remained in the Bari camp. Šubašić met Jančiković in Bari in June 1944 en route to meet Tito on Vis, and Jančiković was allowed to travel London in July (which he did); (2) Zenon Adamič went to Istanbul (November 1943) and was transferred by the British to Egypt and kept there until the end of the war. It is unclear if Adamič was prevented from contacting Krnjević by mail or otherwise, but Tomasevich tells he became the commanding officer of the Yugoslav naval forces in Alexandria, so I imagine he could establish contact with whomever he wanted at some point, but the sources are unclear on this; (3) Ivan Babić flew to Bari (January 1944) and was allowed to talk to Jančiković there, but not with HSS officials in London. He was kept in a prison camp for Axis prisoners in Bari until September 1946. I don't know if so much details would be helpful in the article, or if there is a better way to summarize this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • boycott the election "due to restriction of freedoms"—can you be more specific? (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formally, the election were to be free, but informal ways of suppression were applied by the KPJ. For example, after the HSS re-started issuing of party newspaper in Zagreb, the workers of the printing shop refused to work if another issue was to be published. Officially, it was their own idea, unofficially they were persuaded to do that. HSS affiliated bookshop was bombed, Democratic Party offices in Belgrade were destroyed in an arson attack etc. The authorities either ignored the problems or dragged their feet. On a more formalistic side, political parties were allowed to stand in the election if they register or join the People's Front (i.e. become allies of the KPJ). Nobody actually tried to register, so it is hard to tell if that was a real option, but at least it was perceived as a condition favouring KPJ allies. All this spans multiple sources, so I'm wondering how to better summarize this. I'll think about this (and the preceding item) some more and try to come up with something clearer in a day or two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, thank you very much for the comprehensive copyedit and very helpful remarks. I'm confident the article was improved significantly as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_Peasant_Party_during_World_War_II&oldid=1017360984"