Talk:Ivo Rojnica/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be your reviewer this week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus I've read the article and left some notes below on what needs to be addressed before this meets the good article criteria. It's very well written, there are mostly just a few places where clarification is needed. I see that your activity is off-and-on, so I'm willing to leave this open for a few weeks if need be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General:

Check for MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues. When two links are next to each other without being separated by any words or punctuation, it's hard to tell that they're separate.
I don't believe there's justification for two non-free images of Rojinica. The one of him with Tuđman probably needs to be removed.

Lead:

The lead is a little long relative to the article. Not a high priority issue, but it might be worth condensing some events down and trimming some of the minor details.

Early life:

No issues.

World War II:

It's unclear how or why he was working for the German Abwehr if he was in Croatia.
Some of the details in this first paragraph don't seem relevant to Rojinica's life, especially Budak's comments on the situation. The important detail here is that the NDH received Dubrovnik and Rojinica became its commissioner.
One notable such atrocity took place – "atrocity" puts a value judgement in wikivoice instead of maintaining an impartial tone.
It doesn't say why Rojinica was removed from his post.

Exile:

It's unclear when he tried to keep his identity a secret and when it became widely known who he was.
It doesn't say why his wife was kidnapped. Presumably it was because of the ransom, but should say if that's the original reason and whether she was specifically targeted.

Breakup of Yugoslavia:

It looks like only the first paragraph of this section is about the breakup of Yugoslavia.
he accompanied him on an official visit – Grammatically, it's unclear who is "he" and who is "him".
Nikolić doesn't seem relevant.
The quote personally handing over the post to his successor doesn't seem to add anything to the article.
he was granted an audience with the mayor of Dubrovnik – The article doesn't say why this is important.

Later years and death:

Rojnica's name was notably absent – "notably" might be editorializing.
to the sizeable financial contributions former Ustaše had made – "former Ustaše" threw me off, I'm wondering if "former Ustaše members" or something similar would be clearer.
he was subjected to threats – Should say by whom if possible.

Sources:

[5] Pavlowitch (1985) p. 123 – it would have to accept a member of the Italian House of Savoy as its monarch, but he would merely be a figurehead. As for Dalmatia, is pretty clear plagiarism of she would have to accept an Italian prince for her king, but he would be a mere figurehead; as for Dalmatia,. Also not sure if "Italian House of Savoy" is directly supported by "Italian prince". The source also doesn't indicate that "no need to worry" is an exact quote, or that it's "cryptic".
[9] Ivančić (2018) – Good. Checked all four uses.
[19] Macdonald (2002) p. 137 – Checked both uses. According to the source, it looks like he was citing those numbers as evidence that no eradication was taking place, which isn't conveyed in the article. And it's possible that I missed it, but does this confirm the year of publication for the memoir?
[25] Hockenos (2003) pp. 270–271 – Rojnica also established a recruitment and training centre in Argentina for mercenaries willing to fight for Croatia. is very similar to He also set up a recruiting and training operation in Argentina for mercanaries who wanted to fight in Croatia. Also it doesn't support The breakup of Yugoslavia and the outbreak of the Croatian War of Independence in the early 1990s had galvanized the Croatian diaspora in Argentina, which by 1991 numbered around 100,000. Did a different citation get dropped there?
[29] Hockenos (2003) p. 80 – Checked both uses. Mostly good, but I'll nitpick the "until 2001" since I don't actually see that in the source itself.
[30] Codrescu (1993) – Good.
[37] Jerusalem Post (2007) – Good.