Talk:Kruščica concentration camp/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 07:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Individual remarks

 * Wikilink the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the first occurrence in the Interwar Yugoslavia section.
 * Done.


 * Sentence A fifth, the opposition leader Stjepan Radić, died nearly two months later of complications attributed to the shooting. seems odd to me. The prose should note that he was wounded so it would be clear that he died of complications attributed to his injuries. Since this sentence follows "Two died on the spot and two others were wounded but survived." it implies Radić was not shot and died of something else.
 * Done.


 * In King Alexander instituted a royal dictatorship ... it would be clearer to say "King Alexander I of Yugoslavia instituted a royal dictatorship ..." (i.e. not to pipe the wikilink) to clarify who was Alexander to readers who are not familiar with Yugoslavia.
 * I'm going to have to resist this proposal because "King Alexander I of Yugoslavia ... renamed the country Yugoslavia" sounds horribly repetitive.


 * The sentence Following the 1938 Anschluss between Nazi Germany and Austria,... reads to me as if Anschluss was somehow negotiated or agreed between Germany and Austria. I think it should be revised to clarify that it was German takeover and annexation of Austria.
 * Done.


 * I'm not entirely certain that "opened" is the appropriate word to use in In April 1939, Italy opened a second frontier with Yugoslavia when it invaded and occupied neighbouring Albania. I understand that Italy obtained access to another (stretch of) border with Yugoslavia, but the sentence as-is seems to imply that Italy started to expand from that second frontier. I'm not a native speaker of English, so please correct me if I got a wrong impression.
 * I've changed the wording.


 * It is unclear what is meant by "conditionally" in On 25 March 1941, after some delay, the Royal Yugoslav Government conditionally signed the Pact.
 * I've removed this. It's not that important; the background is supposed to provide a brief overview.


 * Was the government of national unity actually a government of national unity or was the national unity only declaratory. If it was an actual one, the term should not be in scarequotes. Also the term can be wikilinked to the National unity government if it was an actual national unity government.
 * It was a government of national unity in name only.


 * I think it is quite important that Hitler ordered not only invasion but political partition of Yugoslavia as a form of political "killing" of the state. - struck comment as it is covered by another subsection of the prose.
 * The prose concerning Hitler's order to invade, partition of Yugoslavia by its neighbours and Hitler's wish to dismantle Yugoslavia seems out of sequence and might be confusing.
 * Agreed. Done.


 * In the context of partition of Yugoslavia and introduction of the NDH, after ...which included most of modern-day Croatia, all of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, and parts of modern-day Serbia. it might be worthwhile to note that Pavelić ceded territory (and political control) to Italy through the Treaties of Rome as a price for Italian backing for the establishment of his regime.
 * Added a brief mention of this.


 * The prose on the NDH establishment omits that the territory was partitioned into German and Italian occupation zones (by the Vienna Line) and might lead to interpretation that the NDH was in the same circumstances as, for example, Hungary.
 * Good point, I've added a footnote mentioning the administrative partition.


 * Could you clarify what is meant by Serbia was reduced to its pre-Balkan War borders, becoming the only country in the Western Balkans to be directly occupied by the Germans.? The sentence seems to imply that all other Western Balkans areas were occupied by forces other than German - while the Slovene lands and the NDH north of the Vienna Line were occupied by Germans - which makes it quite confusing.
 * As you point out, there are several ambiguities here. This obviously refers to the situation on the ground in 1941, not the entirety of the war. Montenegro and Albania were occupied by the Italians, the situation in the NDH was...complex. And the Slovene lands are in Central Europe, not the Balkans. However, Pavlowitch seems to forget Greece, which was also directly occupied by the Germans. So, for simplicity's sake, I've removed this. The section is supposed to provide a brief overview after all.


 * Lands inhabited by Serbs accounted for 60–70 percent of the NDH's total landmass. seems unclear to me. Does this mean (I'd interpret it that way - although I'd find that hard to believe) that in 30-40% of the NDH territory there was not a single Serb or that the Serbs had majority (or plurality) in the 60-70% of the territory or that there was otherwise significant, but not necessarily majority/plurality, Serb population in that portion of the territory?
 * Pavlowitch doesn't say, though I'd assume he means Serbs formed a majority or plurality over 60 to 70 percent of the NDH's landmass. Because of the ambiguity inherent in this statement, I've removed it (the Serb percentage of the total population should suffice).


 * Is there a way to say if those were all, most, some etc businesses in Within hours of the NDH's creation, businesses brandished signs ...?
 * For brevity's sake I've removed this since these would appear to have been private initiatives, not directly decreed by the NDH government.


 * In ...camps such as Jasenovac, Đakovo and Loborgrad had not yet become operational... were Jasenovac, Đakovo and Loborgrad being set up at the time or still in planning stages or at some other stage?
 * This is a result of me trying to briefly summarize a complex history. Jasenovac was in the planning stages, Loborgrad was on the cusp of becoming operational and Đakovo wasn't being considered yet. Though this isn't explicitly stated in the source. Hence, the present wording.


 * Sentence bit ...Ustaše prisoners who had previously been interned at the Lepoglava prison in Zagreb. makes no sense: Lepoglava prison is not in Zagreb - it's in the settlement of the same name near Varaždin. Please check if they were held in Lepoglava or in a prison in Zagreb.
 * It's Lepoglava, near Varaždin.


 * In Notable members of the Ustaše movement who were imprisoned at Kruščica included Mladen Lorković, Šime Vitanović and Marko Došen. I'd explain why Lorković was notable. I'm not sure Došen is actually that notable and I'm not sure who is Šime Vitanović. Could you please explain there briefly why they were notable? (I have consulted "Tko je tko u NDH" book and it supports notability of Došen - although it would still be good to have the briefest explanation of notability for him as well as Lorković - but the book mentions no Šime Vitanović at all.)
 * OK, I've explained who Lorković and Došen were, and removed Vitanović.


 * On 5 April 1941, the Ustaše imprisoned at Kruščica made a successful escape attempt. reads odd. Wouldn't it be better to say something like "On 5 April 1941, the Ustaše imprisoned at Kruščica successfully escaped."?
 * Done.


 * In At 3:00 a.m., in the early morning of 3 September, ... "early morning" seems redundant.
 * Done.


 * Is there any information who's Nikola Tursun besides Ustaše official?
 * I've clarified he was an Ustaše official from Travnik.


 * Direct quote "Conditions at Kruščica were perhaps even more frightful than at Jasenovac," the historian Yehuda Bauer writes. seems odd to me. It's not a dealbreaker, but I'd rather report it as something like "Comparing camp conditions, the historian Yehuda Bauer concluded that Kruščica might have been worse than Jasenovac". Also the prose here assumes that the reader knows what was Jasenovac like.
 * Again, I'm going to disagree with you here. "Worse" isn't exactly encyclopedic and begs the question, "worse how?" So in this instance I'd prefer to directly quote the man who said it, rather than paraphrase. And the Jasenovac camp is mentioned earlier in the article, so I see no problem there.


 * In On 1 October, 250 male prisoners were deported from Kruščica to Jasenovac. "deported" should be replaced by "moved" or "transferred" or something similar. The prisoners were deported from their place of residence (for example Sarajevo), moved elsewhere from the camp. The same applies to ...170 Serb women and children, were deported to Loborgrad. (assuming they were transported from Kruščica)
 * Done.


 * Change Between 5 October and 7 October,... to "Between 5 and 7 October,..." (in the lede and in the body prose)
 * Done.
 * There's one such instance left in the lede. (Tomobe03)


 * If the memorial area is still in existence, in A memorial area, occupying around 2,000 square metres (22,000 sq ft) was established,... "was established" should be "has been established".
 * Done.


 * The NDH map (the bitmap one, not the vector map in the infobox) is not appropriate for the caption. There should be a map of partition of Yugoslavia in its place - like this one.
 * Done.

Generally, despite the wall of text above, there is not that much work needed to fix the outstanding issues - so I'll pause the review to let you respond/address them before moving on to review of the referencing/sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thanks for taking this review. Any idea why Legobot said this nomination had failed? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think there's nothing to worry about. I have not failed it, and Legobot seems to have a problem processing article titles containing diacritical marks - I received the same message when GA review of Tito–Šubašić Agreements started and everything turned out fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK,, I've addressed the points you raised to the best of my ability. Let me know what you think. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I find the above changes quite satisfactory, except as follows:
 * The note reading The NDH was divided into German and Italian areas of influence. The Italian area of influence was divided into three operational zones. Zone I consisted of the coastal and island area surrounding the cities of Zadar, Šibenik, Trogir and Split. Zone II encompassed much of Dalmatia and the Dalmatian Hinterland. Zone III extended as far as western and central Bosnia, a sliver of eastern Bosnia, and all of Herzegovina. implies that Zone I was a part of the NDH - but it was not. The three zones were territorial divisions established for reference in the course of negotiations of the Treaties of Rome and Italy annexed Zone I. Zones II and III were a part of the NDH under various degree of Italian military and/or administrative control.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've altered the footnote. What do you think? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks ok. Let me have a look at the refs and mos and I'll get back to you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * One instance of Between 5 October and 7 October,... is still left in the lede.
 * Fixed.


 * Does Goldstein source actually interpret the "Poglavnik" title as the "leader"? I'm asking because this would be a very loose interpretation of the term. It is normally defined as an archaic equivalent of latin term princeps meaning chief or head of state etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, on page 133 he translates Poglavnik as "leader" (without the quotes, which are my addition). Would you still like me to remove this?


 * The sentence Around 25,000 Jews were killed in the NDH during the Holocaust, according to Yad Vashem. seems out of place to me. I think it would be better placed at the end of the "Dissolution" paragraph instead of the start of the "Legacy" paragraph for a couple of reasons. (1) this is not sole legacy of this particular camp and (2) it would put into context the 3000 deaths in the camp - especially if this sentence is juxtaposed with the currently final sentence of the "Dissolution" paragraph. For example the paragraph could end in "The historian Francine Friedman places the number of deaths at the camp at 3,000. Around 25,000 Jews were killed in the NDH during the Holocaust, according to Yad Vashem."--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * The article is certainly looking a lot better. Any other ideas for improvement? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and Hi all. Looking at the intro, do you guys think it may be overly detailed? Such as the details about food types and such? May be best for the body of the article. Also words such as “deplorable” seem overly colorful language for Wikipedia. Perhaps “Poor” or “non-existant” sanitary conditions, would be better? Same

With Tomobe03’s point about “worse” being far more neutral than “frighteningly” which again is more dramatic language. I’d say Jasenovac was frightening also. So doesn’t make sense in comparison.OyMosby (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the lede could be shorter, but not necessarily, certainly not at GA level. That can be a field for improvement, but I think the level of summary offered by the lede is sufficiently close to GA criteria. It is certainly up to willing contributing editors to refine the article further after GAR. As regards "frightful" (the word was not frighteningly), I first felt the expression "odd" in the sense of being a part of "old-fashioned" speech (I'm struggling to find a better description here) and therefore suggested "worse" without realising this meant comparison. When the nominator pointed that out to me I realised this and let it go because, as stated above, comparisons make no sense in terms of adding quality to the article and besides it is used in a direct quote. As regards "deplorable sanitary conditions", I agree the term may be too "colourful". Furthermore it can mean different things to people accustomed to different sanitary conditions, so yes it would be far better to say something like "poor/very poor/non-existent/rudimentary (whichever is applicable) sanitary conditions".--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think “frightful” is overly-dramatic language for a textbook like platform encyclopedia like Wikipedia but if we are directly quoting the author, we should use there words otherwise we are putting words in their mouth so I agree with AB if we are clearly quoting the historian and source. Minor hair splits really. Yeah “worse” isn’t saying much for people not familiar with Jasenovac as well which I agree again many won’t have context to how bad it truly was. Perhaps if we do not quote the source directly we could say instead of “frightful” to perhaps “grim” so as to be careful we don’t inadvertently downplay what was meant. Up to you both. This article seems mainly good from what I see though you obviously have way more experience on such matters. Just wanted to put in my two cents as I came across this talk as I frequent Western-Balkan topic articles. It’s nice to see many of these stale articles getting some light shed on them. Also not sure if you saw but AB had some responses to your latest comments where they fixed up some parts per your recommendations. They seem good to me. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Review tools - results

 * Reflinks reports no issues (no action required)
 * Checklinks reports no issues (no action required)
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports no issues (no action required)

, I'd say it only remains to reformulate the "deplorable sanitary conditions" deplorable sanitary conditions.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GAC met in my opinion. Passing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)