Jump to content

Talk:Slavonia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should learn a bit about Croatia. I'll see what I can learn reviewing this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I am confident the article quality will improve as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • That sentence is meant to say that definition of borders of the geographical region varies - it is presently generally identified with five counties in the east of Croatia, but one of those counties includes Croatian part of Baranya (region). Some sources, including Croatian Bureau of Statistics do not distinguish the area from Slavonia when reporting GDP, harvested crops or population, etc. sometimes applying term of Eastern Croatia to the five counties as well. Slavonia as a region is generally considered to contain further microregions, including transborder ones, such as Syrmia, and no statistics are normally published for such microregions. A similar situation exists in the west of the region, where exact extent of Slavonia varies and for instance cities of Novska and Daruvar are sometimes considered a part of Slavonia mainly because they were a part of the Kingdom of Slavonia in the 18th and the 19th centuries. Conversely Pakrac is sometimes though of as a part of Central Croatia - but nowadays most sources in Croatia treat the macroregion of Slavonia as corresponding with the five counties.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, that information was not in the article - I added that now to one of the sections. Since those are not that surprising, i.e. mostly Croatian language is used, would it be better to leave out of the lead (and not add more to it) or would it still be preferable to include it there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have to read the article and understand the socio-political importance of these percentages. You present them towards the end of paragraphs suggesting they are not an important thing for this region of the world. In some regions ethnic or theological composition is extremely important to an understanding of the region. Here it might not be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • I changed it a bit more, indeed there was a confusing bit I overlooked before. The em dash ahead of South Slavs living in the area of the former Illyricum is intended to set off the quoted bit from the rest of the sentence as a summary of descriptive phrase ahead of the em dash.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistory and antiquity
Middle Ages
  • "Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia who was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X, dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925." Do you mean
  1. Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia that was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X. The letter thus dates the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  2. Tomislav, the first ruler of Croatia, was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X—dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  3. Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia. He was styled a king due to a 925 letter from Pope John X—dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  4. Tomislav, the first ruler of Croatia. He was styled a king in a 925 letter from Pope John X, thus dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
As it is, I am having a bit of trouble determining the facts of the sentence. Are you pointing out he was the first ruler, the first ruler style a King, the first ruler styled a King by a Pope. I assume the letter was dated 925.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to clarify the sentence. Tomislav was not the first ruler of Croatia, but he was the first to be styled a king (earlier on they were styled dukes). The document of use of the title, and the date, is a letter from Pope John X.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Yugoslavia and World War II
  • Hm, parameters seem to be properly formatted, and the template documentation says that Firefox should display that. I'll check that out furthermore, and if it proves to be a dealbreaker here, I can always revert that to plain text version.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it a bit to remove need for the abbreviation - besides the regime did not really distinguish between inhabitants of the state and inhabitants of other territories in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Federal Yugoslavia and the independence of Croatia
Political geography
  • Actually, the article does mention (in "Kingdom of Yugoslavia and World War II" section) that the counties were abolished soon after 1918, but it does not deal with their re-establishment in 1992.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whole of Slavonia is a part of Central and Eastern (Pannonian) Croatia NUTS-2 statistical unit of Croatia, together with further areas of Central Croatia." seems to fall short of being helpful. Maybe rather than "a part" say something like it is "the eastern half" or "the easternmost part".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opted for "the eastern half" - to tell the truth, Slavonia (i.e. the five counties) represent 53.9% of the particular NUTS region, which, i believe, is close enough to be translated into "half". The other proposed solution, in my opinion, suggests that Slavonia is a relatively small part of the NUTS region, which would make it misleading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topography
Hydrography and climate
  • This is very far from my area of expertise, but there are two things I wonder about when reading this section:
    1. What happens to the mountain runoff in terms of flowing into rivers.? E.G. in the US, we have two well-known north-south continental divides.
    2. How do the mountains affect the climate. I.E. are they tall enough that on one side of them is desert since the water is sort of scraped out of the atmosphere as clouds cross them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding 1 - there is a catchment divide in the region, running west to east along Papuk Mt. and then along a low ridge from Papuk towards Fruška Gora. North of that line watercourses drain to the Drava and those south of the line to the Sava. An exception to the situation is Vuka - located north of the line - but draining to the Danube, as does the Drava itself. I'll add a bit on this shortly.
  • Regarding 2 - The mountains are not that high - especially considering that the highest peaks specified for the mountains are far from average height of the mountains. At any rate climate on either side of the mountains is the same.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
  • Either add a table with the county populations or add the numbers to the prose here: "The largest portion of the total population lives in Osijek-Baranja county, followed by Vukovar-Syrmia county. Požega-Slavonia county is the least populous county of Slavonia."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economy and transport
  • "largely based on processing industry and trade" - Should we know what they process and trade more specifically.
  • "contributions to total turnover" - is there a link for turnover as you use it. I am not sure if explains the rest of the sentence and whether it relates to my question above. I have degrees in economics and finance and am a bit confused. I imagine things could be clearer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what was I thinking when I typed that. I meant to say that besides wholesale/retail business, processing industry, civil engineering and transport services account for most economy (in terms of income) of the region. I reworded that bit now, hopefully making it clearer.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72,4% is s typo.
  • That's now in as well.
Thank you very much for taking time and effort to review this article. Your input really makes a difference and the article benefited from the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavonia/GA1&oldid=498370457"