Talk:Informbiro period/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through it and fixed some English issues, as well as a couple of context issues, and left one issue marked where I couldn't quite make sense of it. @Tomobe03: please have a look. Nice work otherwise. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The background section feels like it could expand a bit more on why the Tito-Stalin Split happened. It feels quite rushed, especially the second paragraph, and as it was a major factor in the relationship between the two states, I think a little more context would be appropriate.

There is a mix of using "%" and "percent" throughout the article. Be consistent and use just one version (either one is fine).

"By June 1948, Yugoslavia reached an agreement with the United States allowing it access to Yugoslav gold reserves held in the United States." This isn't quite clear: who was allowed to access the gold, the Yugoslavs or the Americans?

"...but recent research demonstrated his claims were false." Avoid phrases like "recent", as that can quickly become outdated. Instead write something like "but research as of YEAR demonstrated his claims were false."

How were the films in the "Selected filmography" selected, and what is their significance?

There is a heavy reliance on two sources throughout the article (Banac and Woodward). While they clearly are relevant sources, is there any ability to some more variety to use? If possible it would be good to do, but I also understand if there are limitations.

I also made a few minor edits relating to grammar, but nothing major. I see that @Joy: has made some edits already, but I would strongly encourage a review by someone like the Guild of Copy Editors, just to further clean up the wording.

It's a fairly comprehensive article, and looks like it does a good job of covering the period. I'll give it a second read once the above are addressed, but it doesn't look like there is much work needed. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. In the meantime, the article was copyedited by the GOCE, so I trust the grammar issue is now addressed. I'll try to address the remaining issues and provide further clarification today and tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of the filmography. The first two items in the list are noted in the preceding paragraph as the first two films dealing with the Yugoslav-Soviet split and its aftermath. The remainder represents, I'd say the entire Yugoslav filmography dealing with some aspect(s) the article topic. I understand that it would be ideal to have a source specifically listing significant (or all) films like the literary authors above, but I don't have one right now. I'll go though what I can access tomorrow and add any such source or remove the list altogehter if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The percent/% and the word "recent" are addressed now - those were simple enough...--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As regards additional sources. I have consulted a number of sources in editing this article and the Tito–Stalin split. I found virtually no disagreements between the sources except those published in Yugoslavia (i.e. likely influenced to some degree by proximity to the events and the protagonists). Among all the sources I found, Perović (and Banac) seem to be most detailed in terms of this article's background, while Woodward and Banac seem to provide most detailed account of the events presented in the article. Most importantly, with the (understandable) exception of the early Yugoslav sources (and absence of early Soviet ones), there is hardly any disagreement between the sources, so I went for the most detailed ones. Those also directly support statements presented by early sources which have been either refuted or at least contested since (e.g. Perović on Kiraly). As an afterthought, Perović relies explicitly and substantially on Soivet sources such as Gibianskii, Sovetskii Soyuz i novaya Yugoslaviya, so I trust this aspect/position is also duly represented. Is there any specific area/issue you would like to have additional sources?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified who gained access to gold reserves now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a bit of context clarification to the Background section. While I agree sufficient context for the origin of the article topic, i.e. the Informbiro period must be provided, I am reluctant to duplicate all (or a lot) of the Tito–Stalin split article content here though per wp:summary. I trust that there are no gaps in the background to the topic left now, but please point out any I may have missed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the list of films with a paragraph covering the topic per source I managed to obtain (took a few days longer to find it though), and added a bit on a play on the topic. I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised, so could you please have a look at the changes and let me know if anything else needs further work. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed replies. I will try and re-read it today, and let you know what I think. It should be very close to ready at this point though, and I appreciate your work here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read it through again. While I'm still a little leery on so much reliance on a couple sources, I do like your justification, and will not hold back promoting the article. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]