Talk:Bajo Pivljanin/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (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.	General This is going to take a while to get through. ~~After introduction in full, Pivljanin should be referred to as Pivljanin, per MOS:LASTNAME~~ ~~Not a lastname.--Zoupan 23:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply] ~~See Kosta Pećanac, and Bajo isn't his last name either.~~ ~~Done.--Zoupan 03:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] There are some enormous paragraphs, I'm breaking them up as I go. ~~the grammar is clunky in parts, I'll go through and do a light c/e, feel free to revert it if you think I've not got your intended meaning right~~ ~~the use of extensive notes detracts from the flow. I believe the various versions of his origins should be included in the text of the Early life section, rather than in Notes.~~ ~~G'day Zoupan are you planning to address this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply] ~~Sorry for the wait. I've moved it into the section now.--Zoupan 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] there is a bit of unexplained jargon such as "slava" which would benefit from a brief note. ~~added parenthesis.--Zoupan 23:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] Early life According to what "tradition" was he born in Rudinice? It would be better to attribute the source in-line ie "According to the historian X Y, Pivljanin was born in Rudinice..." Although there appears to be a number of different versions of what year he was born, and they should all be mentioned in the text rather than in a Note According to oral tradition. The recorders are mentioned, and cited. I'll review the birth years and move them.--Zoupan 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Explain what the different sources say about his family background, and attribute them in-line to the sources rather than in a Note Who wrote the epic poem Sa šta Pivljanin Bajo ode u uskoke? Is it known? If so, their name and title (poet etc) should be stated in the text. That remains unknown, it was recorded by Vuk Karadžić though.--Zoupan 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~who was Asan-aga Kopčić? I assume an Ottoman-appointed noble or similar? Was he also a Montenegrin?~~ ~~An Ottoman Bosnian (Bosnia Eyalet) nobleman.--Zoupan 03:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] ~~I've made an assumption that he was assaulted by Kopčić, but perhaps the violence was against his possessions or a family member? What does the source say about the specifics?~~ ~~The poem says that Kopčić, the leader in Piva, assaulted him, and that Pivljanin then slit his throat and fled his home.--Zoupan 01:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply] ~~I think that should be stated. It goes to understanding his motive and why he was an outlaw. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] Cretan War* I've made a few assumptions in the c/e, that the Venetians were defeated at Moraca, and that the Ottomans built the fortress at Kolasin. Correct.--Zoupan 03:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Who was Amza-kapetan? This whole sentence needs to be broken up into smaller sentences, I can't understand what happened. Some Ottoman captain, tormentor. The story is a change-of-events. Pivljanin's accomplice Lješević is first accused and forced to Istanbul, where instead of being punished/executed he managed to receive rights for Piva to not pay extortion money to local Ottomans.--Zoupan 03:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~Romanija? That is a long way from Dalmatia, or even Herzegovina. Can you verify this?~~ ~~Romanija is a mountain in eastern Bosnia.--Zoupan 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] ~~What was a buljubaša?~~ ~~a Hajduk captain.--Zoupan 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] then it should be in parentheses after it. Otherwise, you are assuming knowledge ppl just aren't going to have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Added parenthesis.--Zoupan 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] I changed 62,5 to 62.5 per MOS:DECIMAL Inter-war period This section is particularly hard to follow. The grammar and chronology is a bit out, especially at the beginning, it should probably start with the decision of the provveditore, then the visit to Venice, and the result of the request for land for the hajduks to settle. The Priuli linked was dead at that time, and his name was Giovanni, not Antonio. I linked to the surname, which I thought was redirected to House of Priuli (req. unc. move, though).--Zoupan 03:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~I don't understand what "termination" means in this context.~~ ~~Termination of duty.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] Put the information about Ana's other possible names in a Note. Simplified parenthesis.--Zoupan 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Legacy* Who was/is Vukašin Gagović? A poet included in the Bosanska vila* magazine, added.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] The street naming etc needs citation/s Is it OK if I link to Gmaps (like this).--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] At GA, probably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~It is unclear why the Bajovići para is bulleted~~ ~~Now unbulleted.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply] The meaning of slava needs to be clarified here, as it is used to delineate relationships, things which aren't apparent to the casual reader with no knowledge of the role of patron saints in family ties. I have passed this criteria, but the prose remains a bit clunky in parts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is a bulleted para without explanation
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.	all sources in languages other than English should be translated and provided using the trans-title field Not stated at WP:CS, though.--Zoupan 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Not explicitly there, but it has a link to {{cite book}}, which does. In any case, this is English WP, so of course foreign language sources should be translated. It is sheer common sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Failure to translate the titles of the foreign language sources in the cite book template flies in the face of the fact that this is en WP. All you have to do is use the trans-title field. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done.--Zoupan 08:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	There are a number of sentences at the end of paragraphs that are currently uncited. I'm tagging them, but usually that would be a quick fail for a GAN The uncited paras are still a problem here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done.--Zoupan 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Not really. Listing sources on the talk page is not the same as citing them in the article. I suggested a note be used to avoid citation bombing, but that doesn't dismiss the need to cite a source for these claims. Alternatively, you could remove the geographical etc claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] So Annotation D does not suffice?--Zoupan 08:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Actually, yes. Sorry about that. I've rm the tag on the futsal team, seems unlikely to be challenged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] *What makes Project Rastko a reliable source? ~~Rastko is not a source itself, it is a database.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply] ~~So how do we know that the version of the poem there is even accurate? Surely it appears in books? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply] ~~It is a copy of Karadžić's 7th epic poetry collection, added inline.--Zoupan 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The video appears to be copyrighted. Linking to a copyrighted video is a copyright violation, see WP:YOUTUBE. Removed.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lack of Ottoman accounts tends to indicate that one of the aspects of the topic isn't covered. Are there any Ottoman accounts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, Bojović (2008), p. 143 for instance says that the famous hajduk leaders of this period, including Bajo, were mentioned in numerous lawsuits, including Ottoman ones. There are other sources that state likewise (i.e "Bajo ... known from Venetian, Ottoman, Ragusan sources").--Zoupan 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm passing this criteria as marginally met, but it would need balancing viewpoints from the Ottoman side to definitely have coverage of the main aspects
	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.	This is hard to establish. Surely there are Ottoman accounts of his activities which might be less positive? I have removed a few "puffery" adjectives here and there. I'm passing this criteria as marginally met, but the lack of Ottoman accounts tends to indicate lack of balance and that this is largely hagiography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	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:Bajo Pivljanin, head shot.jpg should be {{PD-art-100}}~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for seven days for various criteria to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)~~Passing. If it is intended to take this further (ie Milhist ACR or FAC, I suggest putting it through peer review and a GOCE copy edit beforehand, as there are still some clunky aspects to the prose. Given his head was taken to the capital, there must also be Ottoman accounts of the subject that are not quite as hagiographical. To really address the comprehensiveness criteria, I would expect to see some of that. This has been a long process, I hope it hasn't been too frustrating. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review was open for more than a month, I ping the reviewer (Peacemaker67) and the nominator (Zoupan) to have a look at it. The article has no edits since 10 September 2016 though the nominator is active. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if passed points be struck.--Zoupan 20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed a couple of criteria that have been marginally met. The remaining key ones are the uncited sentences (a major problem) and the untranslated source titles (a minor problem). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]