Talk:1st Split Partisan Detachment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've copy edited the article to bring it up to GA standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	suggest "short-lived" is added to the lead after was aY although, Mate Šalov's Četvrta Dalmatinska Splitska Brigada indicates that some of the Detachment must have survived, and it must have continued in some form, because in 1943 there was a Split Detachment. Something about its successors should be included, in the lead.Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	the non-English sources need trans_title, language and oclc or isbn fieldsY
	2b. 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).	I have serious concerns about the reliability of http://www.ratnakronikasplita.com/ This appears to have been published by the Association of Anti-Fascist Fighters and Anti-Fascists. The subject of the article means that this source is not independent of the subject, or even a third-party source. I cannot see how it can be used.Y imdb is not a reliable source, but given it is only used to identify that a film exists, it just scrapes through.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The issue of survivors and successor units is not covered (see above)Y The controversy about naming a street after them is not included. (see below)Y
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Streljani borci Splitskog odreda, Ruduša 1941.jpg is drawn from the extensive znaci collection online, but there is no information about the reason the image is PD. The current licensing is not acceptable for Commons.Y removed
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Assuming that the image can be appropriately licensed (NFA, removed)
	7. Overall assessment.	I am placing this review on hold for seven days. There hasn't been much action on the points raised, and without some significant work to address the queries above, it won't pass GA. I really can't assess some criteria (such as neutrality and prose) until other points are addressed. Passing.

Comment

First of all, thank you for taking your time on reviewing the article and improving it earlier. Regarding the book "Antifašistički Split" published by the Association of Anti-Fascist Fighters and Anti-Fascists, the text I used in the article wasn't actually written by them. I used the info from the section "Prvi splitski partizanski odred" which was actually compiled from two books that are listed at the bottom: Kovač, Vojnović, str. 367. – 372. and Sibe Kvesić, Dalmacija u NOB-i, str. 135–145. These are U Spomen Revoluciji published by the Institute for the History of Workers Movement of Dalmatia (as I understand, the Institute is the forerunner of the present day Croatian Institute for History) published in 1976 and Dalmacija u narodnooslobodilačoj borbi published in 1979 by the same Institute. I'm hoping that with this explanation we could keep them as a source, if not, I think I could come up with something else, although the info about them is really scarce, at least in the sources that I have at my disposal.

this is part of the problem with the article in general. It is a very small (company-sized) unit that existed for a very brief period. It is unlikely to meet the WP general notability guideline without material from sources that are probably not reliable. When I clicked on the links, they took me to the website, so I assumed they were drawn from the website. If they are not, you need to provide more accurate url's. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image, I just used what I found already uploaded on Commons. I don't know from where did znaci.net compile their photogallery, but at the bottom of the page they made it clear that "Sve fotografije su u javnom vlasništvu, ukoliko nije drukčije naznačeno." meaning, "All photos are public domain unless noted otherwise."--Saxum (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Commons can't take their word for it. znaci has no credibility as a site, they provide no information about the information and images they upload, and some of what they upload is almost certainly a copyright violation. We need some information about the author or the first publication of the photographs. Without that information, the image will soon be deleted from Commons, and certainly can't be used here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, real life issues finally caught up with me. That and I got a bit curious about Dubrovnik so I had to leave a few edits there before continuing with this one :-). I've removed to the image to prevent any copyright issues we might have in the future and I used specific sources (added Gizdić and Kovač & Vojnović) rather than just quoting the "Ratna kronika Splita". Hope this answres some of your remarks.--Saxum (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage The issue of the naming of a street in Split after the Detachment (and the attendant controversy) is not covered, including the vandalism of the plaque.

So, I've added "short-lived" in the lead section, Šalov's mentioning of a Split Detachment in 1943 and the required trans_title and oclc parameters. I've also expanded the Commemoration section with information about the destruction of the monuments dedicated to the Detachment, a movie filmed in the 1970s and the recent arguments over naming a street in Split after the detachment.--Saxum (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. Your remarks as well as your copy-editing made a significant difference in the quality of the article!--Saxum (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]