Talk:Marburg's Bloody Sunday/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article. --Mykleavens (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Note that I'm at a disadvantage when handling the Slovenian citations as I can't read the language.

1. Citation 2 looks like it's in the wrong place and should follow "Slovenian: Mariborska krvava nedelja" in the lead.

2. I'm certain that citations 3 and 23 are identical apart from a few extraneous periods in the latter.

3. Citation 4 is in the lead and is repeated in the main text.

4. Need early clarification about the Republic of German Austria.

5. The presence of citations 3 and 4 in the lead is unnecessary given their duplication later. I suggest that these citations are removed from the lead and, further, that the lead is rewritten to comprise more than a single sentence as shown below except that it should be expanded to include mention of the claims to Lower Styria, the war in Upper Styria and the French mediation:

Marburg's Bloody Sunday (German: Marburger Blutsonntag;[1] Slovenian: Mariborska krvava nedelja[2]) is the name of a massacre that took place on Monday, January 27, 1919 in Maribor (German: Marburg an der Drau), Slovenia. Military units from the army of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, commanded by Rudolf Maister, killed between 11 and 13 civilians of German ethnic origin, wounding a further 60, at a protest in a central city square.

6. Introduction is a poor choice as a section name. Rename it to reflect its content as a description of events leading up to the massacre and the general background.

7. Epilogue would be better titled Aftermath.

8. Ideally, I would like to see a bibliography section but the nature of the sources, especially as they are mostly non-English would render this difficult so I'm happy with the citations as presented.

9. A thorough copyedit is needed to make sure the English is good. Watch out for errors like "shooted at" and make sure sentence construction is simplified for ease of reading.

My first impression is of a well-researched article with an interesting subject-matter. If the points above can be addressed, it will help me as I move onto the GA criteria proper via a more detailed study. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Citations number 1 and 2 support the information that this event is called Marburger Blutsonntag on German language. Citation 1 is German source and citation 2 is Slovenian source for this information. Therefore I propose to leave this citations as they are.

2. That is correct. I will remove citation from the lede.

3. That is correct. I will remove citation from the lede.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. I added clarification about the Republic of German Austria. Is it ok?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. I expanded the lede adding claims to Lower Styria, the war in Upper Styria and the French mediation.

6. I renamed it to Background, any other longer name could be against MOS. Is it ok?

7. Done.

9. After I finish all corrections I will ask somebody from copy edit guild (or you?) to perform a thorough copyedit. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my last edits resolve above mentioned issues and that you can continue with a more detailed study?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to some points made above

4. Need early clarification about the Republic of German Austria.

4. I added clarification about the Republic of German Austria. Is it ok?

4. Yes, this is fine. It's a very useful summary that provides clarity. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. The presence of citations 3 and 4 in the lead is unnecessary given their duplication later. I suggest that these citations are removed from the lead and, further, that the lead is rewritten to comprise more than a single sentence as shown below except that it should be expanded to include mention of the claims to Lower Styria, the war in Upper Styria and the French mediation:

5. I expanded the lede adding claims to Lower Styria, the war in Upper Styria and the French mediation.

5. I think the lead now is now sufficient as a measure of the article's scope but it still needs copyedit which I will do. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. A thorough copyedit is needed to make sure the English is good. Watch out for errors like "shooted at" and make sure sentence construction is simplified for ease of reading.

9. After I finish all corrections I will ask somebody from copy edit guild (or you?) to perform a thorough copyedit.

9. Per point 5 above, I will do the copy edit. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will now measure the article against the GA criteria. Sorry about the delay but I've been on holiday. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

I've completed a full copyedit of the article and would make the following points, all of which have been addressed in the copyedit:

1. There are far too many repeated links
2. Although Slovenian is an accepted alternative, Slovene is the preferred version on the site for both the nationality and the language.
3. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was aka Yugoslavia from a very early stage so it should be made clear that this was so and I would prefer to describe Maister's troops as Yugoslavs rather than Slovenes as we don't know if they were exclusively Slovene: I suspect not.
4. Maister's rank is needed.
5. In Maister's article, the lower fatality estimate is 9. Unless that article is wrong (it doesn't cite a source), I would prefer a 9 to 13 range here.
6. There is too much repetition of certain words and phrases such as "the city" and "military units" while a name like "the First World War" must be used consistently without changing it to "World War I" or other alternatives.
7. According to the New York Times and other references, Coolidge's initiative was called the Coolidge Mission, not commission.
8. Grammar and syntax errors have been found though spelling is very good. For example, a word like "protest" needs an article and cannot stand alone. There is too much use of brackets. There is too much use of a comma before "and": this should only happen if "and" follows a clause that must of itself be delimited by commas.
9. There are some very awkward constructions such as: "Following the massacre German Austria on February 4, 1919, commenced a military offensive..."
10. The "see also" section is superfluous as both names are linked from within the article content. Only use a "see also" for an article that is not specified in the text.

I have only one remaining question which is to ask if any more information is available about the firefight itself such as how long did the shooting go on for and what did the protesters do after it began? E.g., did they disperse in panic, did they somehow retaliate or did they regroup and continue the protest? Were there any individual acts of bravery by people trying to pacify the troops, save or treat the wounded, etc.?

Subject to possible expansion of the massacre section, I think this article is now close to being classified GA. Following copyedit, it now meets the well-written condition and I am happy it doesn't breach anything I've seen in the style guide. The sources are excellent and so is the focus, especially as it provides just enough background for a reader to understand the politics and what happened next. You score very well on neutrality as you present both the Austrian and Slovene versions equally. There are two useful and relevant images.

Let me know if anything else can be added and then I can make a final decision to wrap this up. --Mykleavens (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your questions one by one. Since this is rather sensitive topic and English is, obviously, not my native language, it may take more than one or few edits.

Yes, you are right there are too many repeated links. Should I remove some of them?
After I looked at the article about Slovene language I can agree with you
This point is very complex and needs to be explained properly. I will do it in separate paragraph.
Same as previous.
I agree because I think that I saw estimation about 9 dead people in some source that I can not remember right now.
You are of course right here.
If you look at the reference number 26, member of the (co)mission is mentioning commision "Jugo-Slav authorities in Marburg [Maribor] still look with suspicion on the work of Colonel Miles' commission in Carinthia." Also, reference number 9 talks about "komisija" on page 135 (naloga te komisije je bila torej študijska" (on Slovene language). Though, I don't think it is too important issue.
Thank you for copy editing of this article.
Oh, that really looks awkward. I am surprised I did not notice it before. Thanks for noticing.
I learned that in the meantime (when I reviewed a few GANs). At that time I did not know this principle. Thanks for noticing it.

I need additional paragraph to explain points 3 and 4. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re these ten points, I've done everything I mentioned in the copyedit so no need for you to search for repeated links and the like. If you could explain the relationships of the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; and Yugoslavia, that will help understanding. --Mykleavens (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

If we look at this event only, you are right that on January 27, 1919 military units were part of an army of Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Also, you are right that in this state Maister was Division General. But this event was only the final part of the complex process which is called "Battle for Slovenian northern frontier". I plan to write an article about it. This process was extremely complex. It had three periods:

First, there were actions performed by some Slovene officers who deserted army of Austria-Hungary and organized actions sometimes on their own, sometimes even against the instructions of Slovene government from Ljubljana. Maister was one of them at the initial phases of this process. That is the reason why his men were referred to as "Maister's" at the beginning. Not Slovene or Yugoslav. Here is a quote from one text: Narodni svet za Štajersko pod vodstvom predsednika Karla Verstovška mu je dne 1.11.1918 podelil čin generala, da bi se z večjo avtoriteto lahko pogajal z Nemci. Narodna vlada v Ljubljani pa je njegovemu imenovanju za generala nasprotovala. General Maister je nato odšel v Ljubljano, da bi Narodno vlado prepričal o nujnosti splošne mobilizacije, ki jo je imel za nujno pri zavarovanju slovenske severne meje na Štajerskem in Koroškem. Žal Ljubljana z njim ni delila istih misli temveč je tudi mobilizaciji nasprotovala. General Maister se je razočaran vrnil v Maribor in sklenil sam izvesti mobilizacijo na slovenskem Štajerskem....(National council for Styria gave Maister the rank of General, in order to increase his authority in front of Germans. National government in Ljubljana objected against this act. General Maister went to Ljubljana then, and attempted to convince Slovenian national government to mobilize an army and to fight for Slovenian northern frontier in Styria and Carynthia. Unfortunately, Ljubljana did not share his ideas and was against mobilizing an army. General Maister went back to Maribor and organized mobilization on Slovenian part of Styria on his own. [1] That means that in one period at the end of 1918 Maister was not recognized as general by Slovene government from Ljubljana, and mobilization he organized was not official mobilization of Slovenia or Yugoslavia, but his own. Therefore we can not safely claim that his rank was General and that his soldiers were Yugoslav soldiers, when we describe events in November 1918.
Second period was when government from Ljubljana realised that Maister had success. They tried to avoid conflict with Vienna, but in the same time supported Maister and included him in the chain of command. They even started to share ideas of capturing not only Lower Styria but Southern Carinthia and Gosposvetsko polje with Prince's Stone. That was/is the mythical place of Slovenian nationalism. Those ideas were not shared by Serbian Government in Belgrade and Slovenian forces suffered substantial losses without strong support of Serbian army.
Third period was when Serbian government started to share ideas of Slovenian government. It was then when Maister was really promoted in the rank of General by the joint Yugoslav army and put in charge for entire division on the front.

This, probably too long, explanation was aimed to support my following proposal to change only two sentences:

.... under the command of ~~Divisional General~~ Rudolf Maister, ...(in the lede)
In November 1918, after the First World War ended, the territories of southern Carinthia and southern Styria, which had been claimed by the Republic of German Austria, were captured by ~~Yugoslav forces.~~ military units under the command of Slovenian officer Rudolf Maister.

That way the text of this article will correspond with the article about the "Battle for Slovenian northern frontier" when I, or someone else, write it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Thank you, Antidiskriminator. I think that's fine and I've decided that this excellent piece of work does qualify as a good article per all the rationale and points raised above. Looking ahead, I think it will need much more detail before it go to a feature review, especially re the events of 27 January itself. As I suggested above, I think you would need to unearth more information about the firefight itself such as how long did the shooting go on for and what did the protesters do after it began? E.g., did they disperse in panic, did they somehow retaliate or did they regroup and continue the protest? Were there any individual acts of bravery by people trying to pacify the troops, save or treat the wounded, etc.?

I'm glad I've been able to help. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mykleavens for your significant contribution that helped this article reach GA status. Also, thank you for your advices which I intend to follow.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]