Talk:Sisak concentration camp/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 01:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

...many Croats came to resent Serb political hegemony...which resulted in the passing of legislation that favoured Serb political, religious and business interests. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?

The quote does not verify the statement. Borsoka (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph is a summary of what is written in pages 25–34 and 402–403, this includes increasing inter-ethnic tensions due to (among other things) the assassination of a Croatian opposition leader, but also the exaggerated Ustaše claims of killings of Croats by the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, which the movement later used to justify its genocide. WP:FOOTQUOTE states: "Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations." Given that the book is easily accessible on Google Books, I fail to see why replicating almost a dozen pages is needed. If you have suggestions for how to make this paragraph better conform to the source material, I'm all ears, but I'm not pasting multiple pages of text here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording suggests that the Croats' behaviour led to pro-Serbian legislation. I doubt this is a neutral approach. I do not say you should quote the text in a footnote, but here in the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the quote is claiming Croat behavior led to the legislation but that the legislation led to a rise in hostility by certain Croat nationalist and ultranationalist groups. Whether the latter is confirmed by the source I don’t have access to. Anyone have a link to a pdf of the book? OyMosby (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AB. I think @Borsoka was asking confirmation if Tomasevich confirms that there was a “Serbian Hegemony” in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and if there was in-fact legislation passed “favouring Serb political, religious and business interests”. I don’t have access to the book myself so can’t confirm what is on those range of pages. Not specifically the killings that happened or the inflation of killing put forth by Ustashe propaganda. OyMosby (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that there was a Serb political hegemony. I would like to see the text confirming the text quoted from the article above. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I was saying. OyMosby (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~..., but were granted protection by Mussolini and thus evaded capture I would form this fragment into a new sentence.~~
~~...as its neighbours aligned themselves with the Axis powers All of them?~~
~~At the outbreak of World War II... When?~~
~~A link to Royal Yugoslav Government?~~
~~They placed his teenage nephew Peter on the throne... The underage Peter was already sitting on the throne.~~
~~Links to Yugoslav government-in-exile, diplomatic recognition, concentration camp, Concentration camps in the Independent State of Croatia?~~
~~Introduce Zagreb as the capital of NDH.~~
~~...the town hosted two sub-camps... Which? (Sisak or Zagreb?)~~
~~A link to Reich?~~
~~...the abandoned Teslić factory... A link? Alternatively, rephrase it. (Perhaps, "an abandoned .... factory")~~
~~...the Kozara Offensive... Against whom and where?~~
~~Introduce Novi Sisak.~~
~~Explain Sicherheitsdienst.~~
~~...authored a report in which he reported... Rephrase.~~
~~A link to "communist resistance"?~~
~~...the homes of local aristocrats... Could you name some of them? A link to Croatian nobility?~~
~~Introduce the Department for People's Protection.~~
Records kept by Budisavljević containing information about each child detained at Sisak were confiscated by the Department for People's Protection (Serbo-Croatian: Odeljenje za zaštitu naroda; OZNA) and kept from public view... Why?
...protesting the canonization... The canonization or the language used during the canonization?

It is still unclear: with the canonization, or with the language used during the canonization?

This news article seems to indicate both. [1] But given that a passage from the protest letter is abundantly quoted, I find this largely to be a distinction without a difference. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading, the news article says that the Croatian bishops protested because during the canonization only the role of Catholic priests and nuns in the administration of the camp was emphasized and the attempts of Catholic Croats to save the children was totally ignored. I also suggest that the sentence should be verified by a reference to the news article to avoid the direct interpretation of primary sources (two statements by the Serbian and Croatian clergy). Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

~~File:Independent State Of Croatia 1941 Locator Map.png: some words on the internal borders in caption?~~
~~File:Map of the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia.svg: add at least one reliable source to verify the map to the file in Commons.~~

Done. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I do not find the source.~~ Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that page 90 of Tomasevich's 1975 book does indeed contain a map with the caption "Map 3. Partition of 1941", which mirrors the one we have on Wikipedia. If you desire additional verification, feel free to request it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tomobe03: The Commons-hosted image is sourced to another Commons-hosted image which in turn is indeed referenced to Tomasevich p.90. I have added the missing reference to the appropriate Commons page. Maps should not be referenced in article, but at their Commons page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Fix references 30 and 34. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 34 is still to be fixed because it does not point to any source. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Tomobe03

Reference 1 (Mojzes, p. 158) does not support the prose it is used to reference. The material on the indicated page does not deal with 1941, but with 1990 - presumably the result of a typo in the page number. However, the source appears to be of poor quality. Specifically, as I was looking at p.158, I noticed it explicitly states kuna currency was introduced on July 25, 1990. This did not happen until May 1994.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where Mojzes came from, the citations were meant to point to Tomasevich. Good catch. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: when do you think you can address all issues? I put the review "on hold" for a week. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Borsoka. Sorry for the delay, I was held up IRL. I have changed the phrasings and added the links you pointed out. Sisak Novi (or as White called it, Novi Sisak) doesn't have its own article, so I have added a red link. There is a town in Bosnia called Teslić but it's nowhere near Sisak, so I'm assuming it was someone's surname? In the absence of additional context, I have reworded this to "an abandoned factory". The source mentions generic Croats, not aristocrats. Goldstein & Goldstein's The Holocaust in Croatia may have been the source of this notion. I will have to check. As for why the OZNA never released the files, it was almost certainly because of post-war Yugoslavia's policy of sweeping wartime atrocities under the rug in the name of Brotherhood and Unity, although the source doesn't explicitly say this. Thank you for taking the time to complete this review! If you see any additional room for improvement, please don't hesitate to let me know. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: when do you think the two pending issues can be addressed. I am planning to close this review this week. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I close the review due to inactivity. I think two major issues are to be addressed: 1. Relationship between Croats and Serbians in Yugoslavia; 2. Canonization. In the second case, the direct use of primary sources is to be avoided. I am really sorry for failing this important, thoroughly researched and sensivitely written article. Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka, is it possible we can get an extension on the review window? I myself have been busy during the holiday and @Amanuensis Balkanicus has been busy as well outside of Wikipedia and will likely be back on soon. Would be really appreciated. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review was closed. You could renominate the article after fixing the two major issues. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Sorry, I have been busy IRL and was going to address the issues you brought up today. But I am not sure if I am going renominate the article. OyMosby, thank you for your comments and attempts to get Borsoka to reconsider. It is certainly appreciated. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While reviewers are entitled to fail any nomination they deem to be abandoned or taking too much time to resolve issues, I'd urge @Borsoka: and all other reviewers to be generous with time allowed to the nominators. The GAN process is glacially slow, and it takes months for a nom to reach the review stage. While it is possible to renominate an article, it will invariably involve another half-year wait to get to the point of review. Nominations were made months ago, eg. when one's schedules may have permitted more time to edit and things may have changed IRL. It might be prudent to be more generous regarding the period of keeping the nomination on hold. @Amanuensis Balkanicus:, I'd like to encourage you to renominate anyway. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tomobe03's observation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are nominations waiting for a review for months. That is why inactive nominations are to be closed if there is no sign of further activity. All the same, I agree that the article should be renominated. Any of those who had not picked it up for a review for weeks before I started the review could complete it in a few days. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomobe03 and Peacemaker67: Thank you for your words of encouragement, in light of which I shall consider renominating the article, and try and find ways of further improving it once my schedule clears up. All the best, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]